SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Mr. Shafqat Ullah was Inspector (Legal) in the F.IA. He was dismissed from service under office order No, 155/84 passed by the Director-General, F.IA. on 31-5-1984. He has impugned that order in this appeal.
2. The appellant was Inspector (Legal), FIA, Sukkur in November, 1976. One Abdur Rahman, a Railway Contractor, Sukkur, lodged report against him and Sub-Inspector Rashid Ahmad, Assistant Sub- Inspector Nazir Ahmad; Police Constables Din Muhammad and Maula Bukhsh at F.I.A. Sub Circle, Sukkur on 13-11-1976 that they had entered his house on 13-11-1976 in the investigation of a case registered as FIR No, 43/77 of FIA, Sukkur and recovered nine bottles of whisky from possession of his brother Yaqoob Ali. It was alleged that the appellant and the party took in custody both Abdur Rahman and his brother Yaqoob Ali and took them to their office and detained them for one night.
It was further alleged that the appellant and others made demand of Rs,2 lacs for their release and ultimately the bargain was struck at Rs,60,000 and the amount was arranged by way of an overdraft from Allied Bank, Frere Road, Sukkur and was paid to the appellant and both the complainant and his brother Yaqoob All were released. The complaint was registered as FIR No,6/77 and investigation was undertaken. Simultaneously, departmental action was taken and the appellant's services were terminated on 14 days' notice vide order dated 3-5-1977. He made representation to the Director-General, FIA, Islamabad against the order of termination of his services, which was upheld on the ground that proceedings under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the E&D Rules) were not adopted. He was reinstated in service on 21-7-1981. Thereafter, departmental proceedings under E&D Rules were initiated against him. The appellant was charge sheeted on 17-8-1981. He submitted his reply wherein he admitted his association in the investigation of crime No,43/77 but denied the allegations of extortion of illegal gratification. Inquiry into the charges was conducted by Mr. Muhammad Yousuf, Assistant Director, FIA. He held the appellant guilty of acceptance of illegal gratification. The appellant was dismissed from service under the order of the Director-General, FIA.
He preferred appeal to the Ministry of Interior which was accepted on the technical ground that copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to him and further inquiry was ordered. The appellant was served a fresh show cause notice alongwith copy of the findings of the inquiry officer on 29-2- 1984. He proclaimed his innocence in his reply to the show cause notice. He was again dismissed from service under the impugned order dated 31-5-1984 made by the Director General, FIA. His departmental appeal was rejected as per letter dated 8-10-1984 addressed to the Director General, FIA, Islamabad from the Ministry of Interior and communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 14-10-1984. He preferred this appeal on 16-5-1985.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the following grounds:-
(1) The appellant was not given opportunity to put up defence, as required under Rule 6 of the E&D Rules.
(2) The appellant suffered suspense from 1977 to 31-5-1984, and he was removed from service twice during the intervening period.
(3) The Inquiry Officer did not hold the inquiry in accordance with the rules inasmuch as that he did not record the statements of the witnesses on oath etc. He has placed reliance on a case reported in 1988 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal page 2389.
(4) The appellant had requested for appointment of another Inquiry Officer but his request was not acceded to.
(5) The appellant was not supplied copy of the inquiry report and his appeal was allowed on that ground.
(6) The Inquiry Officer and the Authorised Officer recommended appellant's removal from service, whereas the Authority imposed on him the extreme punishment of dismissal from service.
(7) The appellant was prosecuted in a Court of law on the same charge and the proceedings were quashed by the High Court.
4. The respondents did not file written objections. The departmental representative desired to file written objections at the hearing but they were not taken on record as production of the written objections at that stage would have caused material prejudice to the appellant. The learned counsel for the Government made oral submissions and urged that there had been lacunae in the departmental proceedings but they were removed and the impugned order was passed after taking proceedings in acco-dance with law. He contended that prosecution in a court of law did not stand in the way of the departmental proceedings and he placed reliance on the cases reported in PLD 1985 SC 134; 1989 SCM R 316 and 1989 SCMR 33.
5. The appellant has been dismissed from service on the charge that he and other personnel of the FIA posted at Sukkur arrested two persons Abdur Rahman and Yaqoob Ali in connection with a criminal case registered at the FIA Centre and detained them for one night and released them after extorting from them a huge amount. The appellant did admit in his reply to the charge sheet that he was associated in the investigation of that case but he denied that they had unlawfully detained Abdur Rahman and his brother Yaqoob Ali and released them after taking illegal gratification from them. His version was that only Yaqoob Ali was taken into custody from his house on finding him possessing liquor in his house and legal action was taken against them. The complaint was made against the appellant and others to the Deputy Director, FIA and a criminal case was registered against them. The appellant was charge sheeted. Regular inquiry was conducted by an Inquiry Officer. The appellant was associated in the inquiry proceedings. Inquiry Officer held him guilty of the charge. The Authorised Officer agreed with the Inquiry Officer's report.
The Director General, RA accepted their recommendations and dismissed the appellant from service. Of course, there had been lacuna in the departmental proceedings. Initially, the services of the appellant were terminated on 14 days notice. The order of termination of his service was set aside on his appeal and regular inquiry was ordered. After completion of inquiry proceedings, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 22-9-1982. The order of dismissal from service was set aside on his appeal on the ground that he was not supplied a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report. He was served fresh show cause notice alongwith a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report. Thereafter, the impugned order of his dismissal from service was passed on 31-5-1984. Of course, the departmental proceedings occupied a period of seven years or more, but it is evident from the events mentioned above that his reasonable objections were upheld and orders of his removal from service were set aside twice and he was afforded opportunity to resist the proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant made grievance that the appellant was punished twice but that grievance is not sustainable as the order of earlier dismissal was set aside on the ground that it was passed without supplying to the appellant a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report and he was given that much opportunity and the matter was reconsidered and again order of his dismissal from service was made. The Inquiry Officer's report bears out that thorough inquiry was made into the charges. The several orders passed by the authorities indicate that proceedings were taken without any bias or prejudice. The grounds agitated by the appellant have hardly any substance. His involvement in the incident of arrest of at-least Yaqoob Ali is admitted. It was proved at the inquiry that he had taken illegal gratification for the release of Yaqoob Ali and his brother Abdur Rahman. The appellant was, of course, prosecuted on the charge of corruption but the proceedings of the criminal case were quashed by the High Court. It appears from the judgment of the High Court that the proceedings were quashed on technical ground that the sanction for prosecution of the appellant was defective. Even otherwise, prosecution in a court of law on the charge constituting criminal offence does not stand in the way of departmental proceedings. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the Government are authority on this proposition. The Inquiry Officer and the Authorised Officer did recommend removal of the appellant from service but the Authority was not bound to accept their recommendations and the Director- General could pass any order in accordance with the E & D Rules, and the order of dismissal of the appellant from service dated 31-5-1984 was the appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. There is no ground to call for interference with the order. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.