MUHAMMAD. IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).--Briefly the facts forming background of this appeal, are that the appellant was first served with two charge-sheets, dated 27-4-1982 and 6-5-1982 which were duly replied by him. Thereafter, a show-cause notice, dated 11-8-1982 was served on him which is reproduced below:-- "Whereas you Mr. Javed Ahmed Bhatti, Sub-Inspector (under training) Technical Wing of the F. I. A., Islamabad, have committed misconduct as defined under section 2 subsection (4) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, read with the Members of F.I.A., (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 on the following counts:--
(i) On 11-4-1982 you went to the office of District Education Officer (Women's Wing) Rawalpindi and disrupted an important official meeting being held in the said office in spite of the fact that you were informed by the said officer, through her peon, to call on her at 12 noon, the time fixed for visitors to see her.
(ii) You threatened the District Education Officer (Women's Wing), Rawalpindi and the other present in the said meeting of the dire consequences and getting false cases registered against them if the transfer order of your sister (Miss Nasim Akhtar, a teacher in Government Muslim Girls High School, Rawalpindi) was not cancelled by the said officer.
(iii) You assaulted the Office Superintendent of the said District Education Officer who was participating in the said officer's room and disrupted the said meeting on 11-4-1982.
(iv) You used insulting language and called names to the said officer and others present in the said meeting without any provocation from any one present in the said meeting.
(v) You impersonated as 'Inspector' F.I.A., while introducing yourself to the said officer and also falsely wrote your designation as 'Inspector' on the visting chit sent-by you to the said officer on 11- 4-1982.
(vi) On 20-4-1982 you threatened Mrs. Khawar Mahmud, Headmistress, Government Muslim Girls High School, Rawalpindi, through her 'Chowkidar', to abduct her children and kill them.
(vii) On 24-4-1982 you got a false and insulting application against the said Headmistress signed by the residents of the locality where the said school is located.
(2) Whereas, I Abdul Majeed Qureshi, Director/Tech., as Authorised Officer under section 2 subsection (3) of the above rule read with Interior Division Notification No. 3/18/73-Admn. (IV), dated 29-3-1978 initiate action against you and find you liable to be proceeded against for a major penalty, or dismissal from service under section 4(b)(iv) of the above rules.
(3) I, hereby, dispense with the holding of an inquiry against you under subsection (3) of section 5 of the above rules.
(4) I, therefore, call upon you under sub-para. (iii) of subsection (1) of section 5 of the above rules to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of this notice as to why the major penalty of dismissal from service as mentioned above should not be imposed upon you.
(5) In case your explanation is not received within the stipulated period, it shall be presumed that you have no defence to offer and action shall be taken against you ex parte in accordance with the said rules".
2. The appellant submitted a detailed reply, dated 26-8-1982 to the above show-cause notice. The Authorised Officer after hearing the appellant on 13-9-1982, submitted his findings and recommendations. The Authority also granted a personal hearing to the appellant and after considering the recommendations of the Authorised Officer with reference to material on record ordered appellant's removal from service vide a detailed order, dated 19-3-1983. This brought the appellant to this Tribunal.
3. It was first contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was first served with two charge-sheets which were duly replied by him and an inquiry was thereafter conducted by Mian Akhtar Ali, Assistant. Director, Federal Investigation Agency. Since the charges contained in the statements of allegations were not substantiated before the inquiry Officer, an order, dated 31- 7-1982 was passed by the Authorised Officer whereby the said charge-sheets and the statements of allegations were unconditionally withdrawn, therefore, the authorities were not competent to proceed against the appellant subsequently for the charges which were withdrawn. In reply, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that, the charge-sheets issued to the appellant on two occasions, have to be withdrawn on technical grounds and not on merits and the inquiry mentioned by him (the appellant) was in fact a preliminary probe and an informal inquiry conducted by Mian Akhtar Ali, Assistant Director. No order of appointment of Inquiry Officer as required in rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was ever passed, and when full facts warranting action against the appellant were brought to light, it was decided by the Authorised Officer to proceed against him under rule 5(1)(iii) of the Rules by dispensing with formal enquiry and by withdrawing the charge- sheets earlier served. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are clear in our mind that it is not correct that the charges were withdrawn as a result of enquiry but what actually happened was that the charge-sheets were competently substituted by the show-cause notice with a view to adopt a shorter procedure. The course of action so adopted is not open to exception and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is totally misconceived and is accordingly repelled.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant then laid great emphasis on his submission that after having decided to hold a regular inquiry in the matter and subsequently withdrawing the charges unconditionally, recourse to the procedure of show-cause notice was illegal and against the principle of natural justice. It was also urged that the allegations against the appellant were questions of facts which could not be proved without holding an inquiry into the charges. We do not see any force in this contention too, as the law on the point is well settled that there is no vested right in procedure, and a civil servant cannot insist that disciplinary proceedings against him should be conducted in a particular manner, for. This matter is left by the Rules in the discretion of the Authorised Officer. Even if the Authorised Officer has one taken a decision that he would proceed under either of the procedure prescribed in the Rules, he would still be able to recall that order and b adopt the other alternative procedure in appropriate circumstances. It of was so laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sohrab Khan Kalwar v. Secretary to the Government of Sind, Department of Food and others PLD 1980 SC 297 and was subsequently approved in Civil Appeal No. K-88 of 1978 Province of Sind v. Sind Service Tribunal and C.P.S.L.A. No. 269-K of 1980 Asif Jan Siddiqui v. Government of Sind and 2 others. In the instant case though initially charge-sheets were served upon the appellant which implied that the Authorised Officer had decided to adopt the procedure of enquiry as indicated in rule 6 of the Rules but no decisive step was yet taken in pursuance of such decision so much so that even a proper order for appointment of an Inquiry Officer was not issued. In the circumstances, the Authorised Officer was still competent to recall the decision of C holding an enquiry under rule 6 of the Rules and instead to adopt a shorter procedure of show-cause notice and his such action is unexceptionable.
Therefore, this contention of the appellant too, being devoid of force, is repelled.
5. Coming to the merits, it would be suffice to say that it stands admitted by the appellant that when he visited the office of the District Education Officer (Women's Wing), Rawalpindi, in connection with the matter of transfer of his sister, he wrote his designation on the visiting chit as "Inspector" although he was a Sub-Inspector. His explanation that he did so through inadvertence is not acceptable and we are safe in holding that it is established beyond an iota of doubt that when he went to the District Education Officer's office for his private work he impersonated as Inspector, F.I.A., and misbehaved with the officials on duty there. He thus demonstrated a conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, which we find sufficient, without adverting to the other charges; to hold him guilty of misconduct.
6. The upshot is that the appellant has been rightly held guilty and justifiably punished. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
A. E.