' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Mr. Noor Nabi Javaid, who was a Traffic Supervisor, PIA, at Islamabad, was dismissed from service vide orda dated 11-2-1987. His departmental appeal was dismissed on 25-5-1987. Thereafter, he preferred this appeal on 29-6- 1987.
2. The appellant was dismissed from service on the charges communicated to him under show- cause notice dated 20-10-1985. The charges read as under:-
(1) It has been reported that tickets Nos. 214-4103-128-151 and 214-4103-128-152 were issued/sold between the night of 29/30-5-1982 while these were in your charge. Later scrutiny of the subject tickets revealed that as per 'audit coupon' of ticket No, 214-4103-128-151 it was issued in the name of Mrs. Nasir Khan for sector LHR-RWP with a revenue return of Rs,212 at Lahore while the 'flight coupon' was made in the name of Mr. Zahid Jamil for sector LHE-KHI on full fare of Rs, 955. The date of issue on the 'flight coupon' is also different i,e, 30-7-1982 instead of 30-5-1982 as given on the 'audit coupon'.
(2) Similarly, ticket No, 214-4103-128-152, as per 'audit coupon', was issued in the name of child Khan Ali for LHE-RWP sector with revenue return of Rs, 108 on 30-5-1982 at Lahore Airport, whereas, its 'flight coupon' was made for ADULT Travel on full fare of Rs, 955 in the name of Mr. Muhammad Sharif/Mr. Muhammad Riaz.
(3) Having tampered with the official documents with ulterior motive and for unlawful personal gain by defrauding the Corporation, you rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action under PIAC Employees (Service & Discipline) Regulations-1985.
3. The appellant submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice on 26-10-1985. His specific reply to the charges was as under:- "As per normal routine (in compliance with verbal instructions of Station Manager, Mr. Naseem. A.
Baig, presently Station Manager, Islamabad Airport), I drawn following documents from the cashier on 29-5-1982 (while reporting in night duty). {{TABLE}} Excess Baggage Tickets (EBT) 214- 4512-217238 to 242 LHE/SM/044/82/805 dated 30-3-1982.
05 Domestic pax tickets 214-4103-128-146 to 155 : 10 International Embarkation fees : 75 Stickers (Airport Tax stickers)
Domestic Embarkation fees Stickers. 20 {{TABLE}} ' In those days there was no night shift for Cashier at Lahore Airport. As per local management policy, it was agreed/implemented that senior most staff of night shift, reporting first would draw above quantity of revenue documents to use as and when required for that particular night. I being the senior most staff reported first on that night, had drawn the above documents. As per existing P.I.A procedure, these tickets are given to every staff of shift under a specific confidence who issues tickets and gives the audit coupons along with the amount to the responsible person.
' I distinctly remember that I issued four tickets with my own hand from 214-4103-128-146 to 149.
Rest six tickets from 214-4103-128-150 to 2144103-128-155 along with domestic embarkation fees stickers and amount collected in lieu of four tickets was handed over to Mr. Tariq Ali, P31773, T/A for using/depositing with the cashier in the morning. As regards charge of International Embarkation fees stickers/EBT were handed over to Mr. Abdul Qayyum T/O who had reported at 0530 hrs for handling of DXB flight.
' I, after handing over full charge, taken by me to the above two staff, went home in corporation transport. This is also not out of question to clear that this was normal practice for every night shift whosoever reports for performing night duty. I mean to say that taking over of charge from the cashier was an additional duty of the traffic staff in addition to his legitimate duties. And while leaving home the charge was given to the next traffic staff as per routine.
' I have been alleged that audit coupon of tickets Nos. 214-4103-128-151 and 214-4103-128-152 differ with the flight coupons, resulting loss to the corporation and dishonesty with revenue documents etc. Similarly both the documents carry different names and do not tally with the audit coupons/flight coupons.
' These tickets were handed over blank without use to Mr. Tariq Ali T/A, P-31773, along with the other revenue documents as have been cleared in my above statement, but the charge levelled against me vide Nos. 1 and 2 of show cause, as such do not pertain to me. This manipulation of fraud must have been done by some one else. I feel honour in inviting justice from the handwriting experts."
4. Inquiry into the charges was initially entrusted to Mr. Tariq Mahmood, Ticket Office Manager.
Later, an Inquiry Committee comprising Mr. Nafisul Hassan, Assistant Station Manager, K.A.P. And Mr. Anis Qamar Javaid, Law Officer, Karachi was constituted to inquire into the charges and the appellant was informed thereof vide letter dated 3-6-1986. The appellant protested against the action of shuttling of the inquiry from one quarter to another vide letter dated 16-6-1986. However, the inquiry committee proceeded with the inquiry and submitted its report on 23-6-1986, holding the appellant guilty of the charges. The appellant was then given personal hearing and finally he was dismissed from service under the impugned order dated 11-2-1987.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant urged following grounds at the hearing of the appeal:--
(1) The show-cause notice served on the appellant was issued by the Administration Manager, who was not competent authority to have issued it, as defined at clause (9) of Regulation 3 of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985.
(2) No statement of allegations was furnished to the appellant as required under Regulation 78 (1) of the aforesaid Regulations.
(3) The appellant was not supplied a copy of the complaint as required under Regulation 78(3).
(4) No charge sheet was served on the appellant.
(5) There is no provision for two inquiries and therefore, the second inquiry was incompetent.
Reliance has been placed on the case reported as 1988 PLC (C.S.) 211.
(6) Evidence at the inquiry was recorded in absence of the appellant and reliance was placed also on the evidence recorded at the investigation stage.
(7) Defence evidence was not taken into consideration.
(8) The handing over of the charge by the shift staff is recorded in Log Book and the Duty Register and both the books were not produced.
(9) The action against the appellant was mala fide as disclosed in para 1 of the memo of appeal.
6. The respondents have filed written objections and resisted the appeal. The learned counsel appearing on their behalf made following submissions to the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant:--
(1) The show-cause notice was issued by the Administration Manager to the appellant under the Administration Order No,6 of 1985 dated 24-4-1985. The action against the appellant was initiated under the order made by the Director Administration.
(2) The show-cause notice was sufficiently exhaustive and, therefore, there was no need for serving on the appellant a separate statement of allegations.
(3) There is no provision in the relevant Regulations for serving a charge sheet.
(4) There was no complaint in the case as to have necessitated supply of a copy thereof to the appellant.
(5) The appellant was afforded opportunity of personal hearing on 20-7-1986.
(6) The report of the first inquiry officer was not accepted by the competent authority and, therefore, an inquiry committee was appointed which held the inquiry and there was nothing wrong in doing so. Reliance was placed on the cases reported in PLD 1964 Pesh. 167; and 1985 PLC (C.S.) 123.
(7) The Log Book and the Duty Registers were not available as they were destroyed in fire in 1984.
(8) The inquiry was conducted in presence of the appellant.
(9) There were no mala fides behind the action taken against the appellant, inasmuch as that the inquiry against the appellant was initiated earlier than the period he has made allegations of mala fides etc. (10)The involvement of the appellant in the charges was proved before the inquiry committee and he deserved the action taken against him.
7. The charges against the appellant pertain to the time when he was Traffic Supervisor at Lahore Airport. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant was on duty during the night shift of 29th and 30th of May, 1982. During the course of the night shift, the job of the Cashier at the Airport was being done by the senior most member of staff of the night shift reporting first for duty.
As a normal routine, the appellant received from the Cashier Excess Baggage Tickets (EBT) Nos.214- 4512-217238 to 242 (five in number); Domestic Fax Tickets 214-4103-128-1462155 (ten in number); International Embarkation Fees Stickers (Airport Tax Stickers) (75 in number) and Domestic Embarkation Fees Stickers (20 in number). The appellant issued under his own hand four tickets No, 214-4103-128-146 to 149. Fraud was allegedly committed in respect of the tickets No, 214-4103-128- 151 and 214-4103-128-152 which too were issued during the course of the night shift. The fraud was committed in the manner that the audit coupon of the ticket No, 214-4103-128-151 indicated that it was issued in the name of Mrs. Nasir Khan for sector LHE-RWP (i,e, Lahore to Rawalpindi) with the revenue return of Rs,212. While the flight coupon revealed at the time of verification at subsequent stage that the ticket had been issued in the name of Mr. Zahid Jamil for sector LHE-KHI (i,e, Lahore to Karachi) on full fare of Rs,955. And the date of its issue also was different viz. 30-7-1982 instead of 30-5-1982 shown on the audit coupon. Similarly, the audit coupon of ticket No, 214-4103128-152 showed that the ticket was issued in the name of a child by name Khan Ali for LHE-RWP (Lahore- Rawalpindi sector), with the revenue return of Rs,108. On 30-5-1982, whereas the flight coupon of the same ticket bore out that it was issued in the name of Mr. Muhammad Sharif/Muhammad Riaz on full fare of Rs,955. Thus the PIAC was put to a revenue loss of Rs,743 on the first ticket and that of Rs,847. On the second ticket. The plea of the appellant was that after having issued the first four passenger tickets viz. No, 214-4103-128-146 to 149, he entrusted the remaining six tickets No,214- 4103-128-150 to 214-4103-128-155 alongwith domestic embarkation fees stickers and the amount collected against the four issued tickets to Mr.Tariq Ali for "using/depositing with the cashier in dui morning", and handed over the International Embarkation fees stickers EBT to Mr. Abdul Qayyum, T/0 who had reported at 0530 hrs for handling of DXB flight. But the appellant's plea was not supported by Mr. Tariq All at the inquiry. He did not lead any evidence in his defence to prove his plea. Much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the plea that shift change used to be recorded in the log book and the duty register which were not produced. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that such books were maintained but contended that those books were destroyed in a fire incident. Be that as it may, since the appellant had taken in his charge the tickets and the stickers, as mentioned above, he was responsible for their proper utilisation and custody and he should have delivered them to the authorised person: and even if it were believed that he had delivered the unused tickets to Mr. Tariq Ali, he was not absolved of the risk of the misuse of the tickets as it was his duty to have ensured proper utilization of the tickets until he made over proper charge thereof to the authorised person. It was, of course, argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no handwriting expert evidence was collected to find out whether the misused tickets were issued in the hand of the appellant. Even if the suspected tickets were not issued by the appellant, he could not escape the responsibility of the misuse of the tickets as he was responsible to account for their proper utilisation, as observed above. It could be said at the most that there was no evidence that the appellant had himself misused the tickets but there was undisputed evidence that they were misused while they were or were supposed to be in his custody. There was hardly any element of alleged mala tides behind the action taken against him. According to him, the mala fides alleged by him are disclosed in para l of the memo of appeal. He has alleged that he was transferred to Jeddah and there he incurred displeasure of the Station Manager of P.I.A., by name Mr.S.M. Sabir on account of his refusal/inability to send former's wife from Jeddah to Islamabad without ticket on 29-9-1983; and on another occasion he could not oblige him to adjust two females and one infant over and above the capacity of an aircraft on 10-10-1983; and he had apprised the authorities thereof. It is stated that a probe was made against several P.I.A. Officers/officials in respect of misuse of tickets and falsification of accounts in May, 1982 but his name was not amongst them and his name was introduced at a later stage in 1985 and such belated move against him was indicative of the fact that the accusation was manoeuvred in his absence in order to harm him. The charges against the appellant pertained to the month of May 1982 while he was posted at Lahore. He was transferred to Jeddah somewhere in 1983. The mischief of misuse of tickets seems to have come to light during the course of the audit of the accounts. There is evidence on record that the mischief attributed to the appellant came to light when probe was made against some other officers. Necessary investigation was done and the investigation report was submitted in the year 1984. The matter remained pending and the appellant was posted at Jeddah and it was processed on his return from Jeddah. Of course relations between the appellant and the Station Manager at Jeddah were not pleasant for any reason, but the charges against the appellant pertained to earlier period and they were being investigated while he was posted at Jeddah and they could be finalised only after he returned from there. The conclusion, therefore, is that the charges against the appellant of misuse of the tickets stood proved.
8. Adverting to the legal pleas, referred to above, the disciplinary matters of the PIAC employees are regulated under Regulations 75 to 89 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulation, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1985). Procedure for taking disciplinary action is contained in Regulation 78. It is spread over 18 paragraphs. Its paragraph 1 provides that when as a result of preliminary investigation, an employee is reported to have committed an act or omission amounting to misconduct, the competent authority or any person authorised by it in that behalf shall cause a show-cause notice to be issued by him along with a statement of allegations. Paragraph 3 thereof provides that a copy of the complaint received against the accused may be provided to him along with the show- cause notice unless the nature of the complaint is such that in the opinion of the competent authority, its disclosure is not warranted. It is provided in para. 6 that in case the competent authority is not satisfied with the written reply of the accused or if the accused fails to submit his written reply within the specified time, the competent authority shall institute an inquiry against him and may appoint an inquiry,officer or inquiry committee to inquire into the allegations against him, except the cases where minor penalty of censure or with-holding of increment for a period not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding 5% of basic pay is proposed to be imposed. Paragraph 7 lays down that the inquiry officer or the inquiry committee, as the case may be, shall notify to the accused time, date and place of inquiry and offer him an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses against him, making his own statement and examining such witnesses as he may wish to produce in his defence. Paragraph 9 enjoins that the inquiry officer or the inquiry committee, as the case may be, shall inquire into the misconduct alleged against the accused, and may examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or in defence of the accused as may be considered necessary, and the accused shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses in his defence and to give evidence in person unless it cannot be done for certain exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 17 provides that on receipt of the report of the inquiry officer or the inquiry committee, as the case may be, the competent authority may impose such penalty as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. It would thus appear that the competent authority has the pivotal role in taking the disciplinary proceedings against the PIAC employees. 'Competent authority' is defined at clause (9) of Regulation 3 as the Board or such officer or authority authorised by the Board to exercise the powers of the competent authority under the Regulations.
In the appellant's case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by serving on him a show-cause notice dated 20-10-1985 (Annexure 'A). The Regulations do not provide for serving a charge sheet.
The show-cause notice was sufficiently exhaustive and contained the charges against the appellant and there was no prejudice by not supplying him statement of allegations separately.
There was no written complaint against the appellant and there was no question of supplying him a copy thereof. The show-cause notice was, no doubt, issued by the Administration Manager but it has been stated that it was issued under the orders of the competent authority. The competent authority was the Board or such officer or authority authorised by the Board to exercise powers of the competent authority under the Regulations. The authorisations of exercise of powers of the authority were issued under Administration Order No,06/85, dated 24-4-1985. The appellant was in Pay Group IV at an outstation at the relevant time. As per schedule of authorisations of the exercise of powers the competent authority in respect of the employees below Pay Group-V, for issuing show-cause notice is the Area/Station Head at the out-station. The issuance of the notice to the appellant by the Administration Manager at Rawalpindi was, therefore, by the competent authority.
The schedule of authorisations, referred to above, authorises the Directors in respect of the employees upto Pay Group VII to pass orders of dismissal from service, but with the concurrence of the Director Administration. In the instant case, the order of dismissal of the appellant from service was issued by the Administration Manager (Customers' Service) with the approval of the competent authority. The departmental representative has placed before us the relevant file which shows that the order of dismissal of the appellant was actually made by the Director Customers'
Services on 20-1-1987 and the Director Administration had given concurrence on 2-2-1987 and the order was actually issued on 11-2-1987. It is evident that the proceedings against the appellant were taken by the competent authority of course, the inquiry into the charges, at the first instance, was entrusted to an inquiry officer and it was later entrusted to an inquiry committee of two officers. The competent authority was not satisfied with the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer and, therefore, an inquiry committee was appointed to hold the inquiry. Since no final order was passed on the basis or in pursuance of the report of the inquiry officer, there was no bar to or impediment in getting the inquiry held by an inquiry committee, which was obviously a superior forum. The final inquiry report dated 23-6-1986 reveals that its findings were based on the evidence recorded by the inquiry committee and no extraneous matter was taken into consideration. Reference to the investigation report or any other report did not make the inquiry report an invalid document. The inquiry report reveals that the appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. The rules do not provide for issuing second show-cause notice and what is provided is that the accused official shall be afforded opportunity of hearing if the penalty of dismissal from service is proposed to be imposed and that was done in the case of the appellant. It thus follows that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Regulations 1985.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.