1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.-- Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to consider whether the Federal Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer of the charges levelled against him and held him guilty of some other charges of misconduct'disclosed during the course of inquiry which were irrelevant of the statement of allegations or the charge-sheet served on the appellant.
2. ' The appellant who is now dead, was serving as Chargeman in the Army Stores Inspection Depot, Karachi. On 12-9-1982 he was served with a charge-sheet by the respondent No, 2 vide his Letter No, 17'738/135/AD dated 31-8-1982 of the following allegations levelled against him:--
(1) In that as has been alleged by Field Security Team you accepted illegal gratification from M/s. Rauf Textile Mills, Karachi on account of inspection of Cloth Cotton Drill Khaki and Cloth Cellular Khaki.
(2) And that you deposited an amount of Rs,800 on the night of 22-8-1982 with the members of F.S. Team, Karachi when you were checked by them at your residence. And that a sum of Rs,2,000 was deposited later on with the F.S. Team by Mr. Irshad Mohammad Tariq, Supr 'B' of ASID Karachi on your behalf'.
3. ' The appellant was asked to submit his explanation to reach respondent No, 2 within 10 days from the date of receipt of the ctiarge-sheet failing which the appellant will be assumed that he has no explanation to offer and further necessary action will be taken under the rules. On receipt of the said charge-sheet and statement of allegations the appellant submitted his reply to respondent No, 2 on 21-9-1982, wherein he denied the charges and allegations levelled against him.'
4. The appellant was suspended from service by respondent No, 2 vide his Letter No, 17738/175/AD dated 18-10-1982. A Departmental enquiry was conducted in the matter and as a result of which the appellant was held responsible for the charges and dismissed from service by the respondent No, 2 vide his Letter No, 17738/215/AD dated 27-4-1983. Against his dismissal the appellant filed appeal before respondent No, 4 on 22-8-1983. The delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant was caused due to the fact that the appellant received the copy of the enquiry proceedings after 6-8- 1983. The appellant did not receive any reply of his departmental appeal and filed another appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 21-11-1983. The learned Members of the Tribunal who heard the the same vide their judgment dated 1-8-1984. Hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the proceedings of departmental enquiry referred to hereinabove and the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal. It is clear from the facts that a detailed scrutiny of the evidence on record had been made by the members of the enquiry report. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovery of Rs,800 and Rs,2,000 by the F.S. Team was not proved and the that the appellant was held guilty for the charges of misconduct, is not convincing. It is apparent from the record of the enquiry that in preliminary enquiry the appellant has categorically admitted in his statement that Mr. I.M. Tariq Supr 'B' alongwith members of F.S. Team visited his residence and he also confirmed in his cross- examination that he recognizes Mr. Imam. Tariq. The appellant also admitted his travel in the car of the representative of the Textile Mills from Cyanide Factory to the Mohajir Camp Chowk alongwith Mr. Kaleem-uz-Zaman. But in his statement at a later stage the appellant has totally denied the visit of Mr. I.M. Tariq alongwith the members of F.S. Team, to his residence as well as his travel in the Mills representative's car on 22-2-1982. These contradictory statements on the part of the appellant show his guilty conscience by his own conduct which clearly makes him responsible for the commission of the alleged offence beyond any doubt. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Members of the Federal Service Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the enquiry proceedings on the record and the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any legal infirmity therein. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Service Tribunal and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.