SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --The Petitioner, a former employee of the Federal Investigation Agency, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 9th of March, 1989, whereby his appeal against the order of dismissal from service was itself dismissed.
2. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that on the 3rd of July, 1985, he went to the Airport with a view to ensure the safe exit of a passenger on a passport which was forged and did not belong to the traveller. The passenger was off-loaded on the fabrication of passport being detected at the last moment and an enquiry followed against the petitioner, and a criminal case was registered against the others involved in the racket. Instead of adopting an elaborate procedure of enquiry through an Enquiry Officer a show cause notice was served on the petitioner and after examining his pleas in defence, he was dismissed from service by the competent authority. His plea did not succeed before the higher departmental authorities and the appeal before the Tribunal also failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the first place the adoption of a shorter procedure of show-cause was totally uncalled for, and the controverted factual allegations made it imperative that a full-fledged enquiry should have been held into the charges: It was further contended that certain material collected from the Police file was utilized for recording a finding against the petitioner and such material would ordinarily be inadmissible even in the departmental enquiry. Finally it was urged that a request had been made for a copy of the Enquiry Report etc., but no attention was paid to the demand so made and the petitioner was seriously prejudiced in showing cause.
4. The Service Tribunal had the benefit of going through all these submissions and it recorded the following finding:- "We have come to the conclusion that the requirements of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 were fully met in this case. The appellant did receive even the opportunity to go through the preliminary enquiry report and other concerned documents. He was served with first Show Cause Notice by the Authorised Officer and then a second Show Cause Notice by the Authority before the punishment was awarded. He was also heard in person. So far as the merits of the case .Are concerned, we are fully convinced that the respondents had enough material and sufficient reasons to hold the appellant guilty of misconduct. There is no case for any interference and we, therefore, dismiss this appeal."
5. As regards the discretion of the competent Authority to adopt the shorter procedure, the matter has been considered at length in respect of a uniformed force, by this Court, in the case of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 S.C. 134).
In the context of that case and the law laid down by this Court therein, it was held that at times, such shorter procedure would be unobjectionable being the alternative method prescribed by law available for examining the conduct of an employee. A civil servant cannot have a choice nor can he insist that one procedure to the exclusion of the other, should be adopted.
6. The Tribunal has re-examined the facts and has independently come to a conclusion which affirms the finding of the departmental authorities. In view of such concurrence, there remains no question of law such as may require further examination by this Court. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.