Through the captioned petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality of the appellate order dated 11.2.2022 passed by respondent Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the order of Dismissal from Service dated 16.08.2021, passed under Para 7(B)(1)(d) of Civil Aviation Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations-2014 (Revised Version-2010), was maintained, an excerpt whereof is as under: "1. Reference Show-Cause Notice of even number dated '26th July, 2021, your reply dated 04th August and Personal Hearing granted to you on 13th August, 2021.
2. The undersigned being Competent Authority has pursued all relevant records, along with your submissions during the course of disciplinary proceedings and personal hearing, whereby facts and evidences prove your involvement as one of the main culprit in fake employment of commoner, Mr. Siraj Ali Bangash and others in CAA, after taking bribe money of more than PKR 0.5 Million from the innocent citizens. Your referred act is a grave offence through which you have tarnished the image of this reputable Authority and has also caused embarrassment to this prestigious institution. Hence, the charges of corruption, misconduct and acting in a manner prejudicial to the Interest of Authority have been proved beyond any iota of doubt.
3. Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred upon the undersigned and after adherence to the laid down rules you are awarded major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" with immediate effect under Para 7(B)(1)(d) of Civil Aviation Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 2014 (Revised Version-2010)."
2. Petitioner claims that he has served as Staff (SG-02) in Civil Aviation Authority, Jinnah International Airport (JIAP) at Karachi and had been doing his job perfectly however, during his tenure of service, he was served with show-cause notice dated 26.07.2021 with the allegations of breach of discipline along with others charges of misconduct, which were denied by him. Per the petitioner, he was dismissed from service vide office order dated 16.08.2021 without assigning any cogent reason, thereafter, he preferred department appeal, which was too rejected vide appellate order dated 11.2.2022 as discussed supra.
3. The main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order of dismissal from the service of the petitioner was made not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, but was made by way of punishment. An inquiry was made as to the character of the petitioner into the allegation that he facilitated someone for the job by obtaining a bribe, without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing in the inquiry and without giving him any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the impugned order was made after the completion of the preliminary inquiry on the ground of his misconduct which cast a stigma on his service career. The order in question is, therefore, not sustainable under the law and it is made by way of punishment, the ground being his misconduct as found based on the inquiry of certain allegations behind his back. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that issuing a show- cause notice to the petitioner in these circumstances was malafide on the part of Respondent No. 3 who did not consider the fact of the matter and issued Impugned Order Dated 16-08-2021, by dismissing the Petitioner, without any valid cause, which violates the Petitioner's fundamental and lawful rights to do the job. Learned counsel contended that respondents under the rules have no right to terminate the service of the petitioner without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of the law must be complied with, which factum is missing in the case. He lastly contended that the impugned orders have been made without giving any opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses if any, that is, in other words, the order of dismissal from service has been made in total contravention of the provisions of the Civil Aviation Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 2014. The impugned orders are therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside and a writ of certiorari be issued on the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned orders of his dismissal from service as well as appellate order. He further pleaded that a writ like mandamus and appropriate directions be issued to allow the petitioner to be reinstated in the post from which he has been dismissed.
4. Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghauri, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised the question of maintainability of the instant petition and supported the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the instant petition. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, as such he is not entitled to any kind of discretionary relief from this Court; that the petition filed by the petitioner falls within the doctrine of laches and is liable to be dismissed by this Court; that CAA is an independent authority and having non-statutory Rules of service and remedy available to the employee is that to file Civil Suit for Damages because of reported judgments PLD 2011 SC 132, 2012 SCMR 1681 & 2013 SCMR 1383. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Honorable Supreme Court has already held that M/s. CAA has no statutory Rules and Regulations and writ petition against M/s. CAA in this Court is not maintainable.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record and case law cited at the bar.
6. That a Board of Inquiry was constituted to ascertain the facts and identify, the CAA officials involved in the fake employment of Mr. Siraj Ali Bangash, the issuance of a fake CAA Card, and all other related discrepancies. The DG CAA finalized the BOI report and directed it to initiate strict disciplinary action against accused officials. Accordingly, the petitioner namely Lazar (CAA/S14203)
Ex-GSA Staff (SG-02), was served with a Show-Cause Notice dated 26th July 2021. The petitioner was charged with breach of discipline, misconduct, corruption, acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of CAA, and committing an offense, as he was found to be the main culprit who obtained an amount of PKR 0.5 Million from the innocent citizens as bribe money for providing them employment in CAA, as identified by Board of Inquiry in its report; that petitioner submitted his written reply on 04.08.2021 to the said Show-Cause Notice dated 26.07.2021 wherein, he stated that he had already attended the inquiry proceedings in this regard and had given all answers against the allegations levelled against him. However, the competent authority was convinced that the petitioner was one of the culprits of the gang who had trapped innocent citizens and obtained money from them for providing them fake employment in CAA and found him involved in tarnishing the image of the authority and caused embarrassment as well, therefore, the petitioner had been awarded the major penalty of "Dismissal From service vide order dated 16.08.2021; that the petitioner had submitted his departmental appeal to the Director General CAA on 02.09.2021 against the award of the major penalty of "Dismissal from Service" vide office order dated 16.08.2021 and had requested for grant of a personal hearing by the appellate authority, according to the prescribed code of conduct. The appeal of the petitioner was considered at the appropriate level and the Director HR being Appellate Authority had provided him an opportunity for Personal Hearing on 01.10.2021 vide letter dated 29.09.2021. After providing a personal hearing to the petitioner as during personal hearing, the petitioner was unable to rebut the charges levelled against him in the show-cause notice dated 26.07.2021 which led further to his dismissal from service on 16.08.2021, the appellate authority thoroughly perused and gone through the relevant record and maintained/upheld the earlier decision of "Dismissal from Service" dated 16.08.2021 and rejected the departmental appeal of the petitioner on 25.10.2021. Primarily, the petitioner has been granted ample time and opportunity to prove his innocence but the petitioner failed to do so.
7. In view of the factual position of the case, we are not inclined to substitute our findings in place of the findings of the competent authority of CAA, as such the disputed questions could not be threshed out under Article 199 of the Constitution. Therefore, this petition is found to be not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution and dismissed in terms of ration of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sui Southern Company Limited and others v. Saeed Ahmed Khoso and others, 2022 SCMR 1256.