1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This petition for grant of leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-1-1989 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No,418(R) of 1986, whereby the Tribunal accepted the appeal of the respondent with back benefits.
2. ' The facts, which form the background, are that on 13-11-1985 PIA International Flight No,PK-702 arrived from London and the baggage was being picked up from the conveyer belt by the incoming passengers. Two suit cases, which arrived by the said flight, were loaded on a Tractor trolly by one Khane Zaman and were taken to the domestic Cargo Section of the PIA at Islamabad Airport, which were detected by the Officers of the Customs and brought back to the Customs Hall.
3. On examination by them, the Customs Officers in the presence of the representative of PIA, found that the said two suit cases contained 8 VCRs, 60 VCR Cassettes etc. Since the said goods were brought in the country in violation of restrictions imposed under section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969, the goods were seized by Customs for legal action. Necessary enquiry was conducted under the directions of the Assistant Collector Customs, by the Superintendent Investigation Branch of the Customs and it was found that Mst. Rukhsana Yasin PIA Airhostess had brought along the said two suit cases as accompanied baggage, totally untagged/unmanifested in disregard of rules, from London to Islamabad Airport. At Islamabad Airport under the instructions of and in connivance with Manzoor Ahmad (the present respondent), the said suit cases were taken off the conveyer belt outside the International Arrival Lounge, fake domestic tags were affixed on both the suit cases and were taken to the Domestic Cargo Section of the PIA from where the said goods could be easily taken out of the Airport premises.
4. ' The precise part assigned to the respondent is that he took the suit cases off from the conveyer belt of the International Lounge and got the same put on a Tractor trolly for being taken to the Domestic Cargo Section of the PIA and asked Khan-e-Zaman, Ramp Operator, to take them to Domestic Cargo which were accordingly taken there for the purpose of taking them further out of Airport premises when the said suit cases were detected by the Customs authorities. The Customs authorities conducted an enquiry in the said matter after giving a notice to Mst. Rukhsana Yasin and Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Khan, the present respondent and came to the conclusion that the goods were purchased from London for which receipts were produced by Mst. Rukhsana Yasin herself who had also made a statement before the Customs authorities about the said fact in the first instance.
5. The Deputy Collector of Customs after completing the proceeding vide his order dated 4-3-1986 ordered the confiscation of the seized goods. No appeal was filed against the said order.
6. ' A show-cause notice was issued to the present respondent and Mgt. Rukhsana Yasin by the petitioner-Corporation on 20-11-1985 wherein the precise allegations were listed. He submitted his reply on 24-1.1-1985 denying his involvement. An inquiry was ordered in which the respondent participated and ultimately vide order dated 24-8-1986 was dismissed from the service of the Corporation.
7. ' The respondent filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was accepted by the Tribunal earlier on 18-4-1986. The present petitioners filed a petition before this Court (C.P.S.L.A.
8. No,130-R of 1988) against the said order dated 8-6-1988 of the Tribunal which was converted into appeal and accepted by this Court on 8-6-1988. The case was sent back to the Tribunal for fresh decision as important pieces of evidence had been overlooked including the order of the Deputy Collector Customs whereunder the goods had been confiscated as smuggled.
9. ' On remand, the learned Tribunal again took up the appeal of the respondent for consideration alongwith the appeal of Mst. Rukhsana Yasin. After enumerating the facts and points of law involved, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Mst. Rukhsana Yasin but accepted the appeal (No,418-R/86) of the respondent vide its order dated 15-1-1989 observing as follows:- ' The involvement of the appellant is to the extent that seeing the boxes lying outside the lounge, he had asked the loader to shift them to the cargo office. This much accusation did not furnish sufficient evidence that the appellant was in league with the Airhostess Miss Rukhsana Yasin in the act of smuggling of contraband goods by her. It could be a case of suspicion but suspicion did not entail the punishment imposed on him. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits of re-instatement in service and all admissible back benefits."
10. ' This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid order of the Service Tribunal.
11. ' Raja Muhammad Akram, learned counsel, for the petitioner, submits that the above obsearation of the learned Tribunal that "this much action did not furnish sufficient evidence that the appellant was in league with the Airhostess Miss Rukhsana Yasin in the act of smuggling of the contraband goods by her. It could be a case of suspicion but suspicion did not entail the punishment imposed on her " is against the evidence on record, because during the enquiry the respondent himself stated as follows: (translation in English):-- "Q. Are you saying after properly consulting your memory that apart from greetings etc. You had no other talk with her?
12. ' Ans. With my full memory I state on oath that she (Rukhsana) requested me many times but I had refused because this was beyond me. Whatever I have done today I have done by mistake. The Airways Bill No, was written on it which was the cause of misunderstanding and I went and became busy. She said only this and did not say anything about the nature of the Airways Bill No, on the box.
13. She has been telling me for 4/5 months and I came back from the village day before yesterday. I was not present here. On the Plane however she stated that I have brought some goods and the same will reach the Cargo. There are two boxes and two white circular belts are on them. When the driver brought the two boxes they had two white belts around them and they came in the Cargo trolly. I was having look at the luggage and came to know that it has gone to the Customs Launge. I told the driver to go and bring the Cargo boxes. These boxes were near the Customs Cargo belt in the trolly. I showed these boxes to driver Khane Zaman to take them to Cargo. When the trolly reached the Cargo I went inside and began checking the papers..."
14. ' Again, Khane Zaman, Ramp Operator, during his evidence stated as follows:- " I was coming to leave the baggage of PK-300 outside the Domestice Lounge. I was stopped on route by Mr. Manzoor, Cargo Assistant when en route I was met by Manzoor Khan, Cargo Assistant, who stopped me and told me that there are two boxes of Cargo in a trolly outside the International Cargo and I should bring them to Cargo. After leaving the Cargo PK-300 I went to the place indicated by Mr. Manzoor, took trolly and left it in the Cargo area Mr. Manzoor had indicated to me the place and type of boxes that were in the trolly outside the International Arrival Lounge."
15. ' Learned counsel further submits that in addition there is enough evidence on record that the respondent Manzoor Ahmad knowing full well that these were illegally brought boxes and were contraband goods, tried to remove them from the Customs Area to the Domestic Cargo Lounge from where they could be easily taken away and was thus fully guilty of aiding and abetting Mst.
16. Rukhsana Yasin. The observation by the learned Tribunal is based not only on misreading of evidence but is clearly against overwhelming evidence on record.
17. ' The learned counsel has argued that the complete misreading of the evidence and acting against the evidence on record renders the judgment and order of the Tribunal wholly illegal and void.
18. ' According to him, since the facts are to be found by the Tribunal it is its legal duty to act in accordance with the accepted- legal norms and not act in a whimsical and capricious manner in disregard of the evidence and material before it.
19. ' We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that where the Tribunal has completely misread the evidence on the record and has arrived at a conclusion which is whimsical and capricious or is based on a disregard of the evidence and material before it, this Court can interfere in its corrective jurisdiction under sub-article (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution. But in this case though the impugned order leaves much to be desired and does not discuss the evidence before it in a very satisfactory manner but nonetheless after going through the entire material ourselves we do not think that the conclusion finally reached by the Tribunal can be held to be whimsical or capricious. It is true that the pieces of evidence brought to our attention have not been noted by the Tribunal in its order but the final conclusion, to which it has arrived namely that this was a case of suspicion and the guilt of the respondent was not established beyond all reasonable doubt was a possible conclusion which could be formed on a proper consideration of the entire evidence on the record. In these circumstances, we are hesitant to set aside the order of the Service Tribunal. However, we would like to observe that the Service Tribune being the final Tribunal on matters of fact should give greater attention to all pieces of evidence brought on the record so that a proper balance is maintained in the administration of justice.
20. ' This petition, with these observations, is dismissed.
21. ' The copy of this order should be sent to the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.