' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Khairul Inam Rizvi has preferred this appeal against the order of his dismissal from service as Sub-Inspector, HA, I&AS, Karachi, made by the Director-General, FIA, on 23-1-1982.
2. The appellant was imposed the punishment of his dismissal from service on three counts. Firstly, he was served a show-cause notice dated 30-9-1981 that he has not joined the 7th probationers course having commenced from 15-8-1981. He submitted his reply that he was not communicated the order of his attending the training course. He also advanced the plea that he could not attend the course on account of medical grounds. He was served second show-cause notice dated 7-10- 1981 that he was not attending the office ever-since his suspension and he was, therefore, liable to disciplinary action. He submitted his reply that he was attending the hospital in connection with his treatment and used to attend the office of the Superintendent, FIA, I&AS, He was served a third show-cause notice dated 7-10-1981 that he had received Rs,35,000 from one Muhammad Afzal s/o Ghulam Haider of Multan and his cousin Muhammad Ashraf in February, 1981 on the pretext that he would arrange their going to Saudi Arabia on employment visa. He made denial of the allegations in reply submitted by him. The Director-General, FIA, was not impressed by the replies made by the appellant to the show-cause notices and made consolidated order of dismissal of the appellant from service, impugned in appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant had satisfactorily explained his non-attending the training course and his failing to attend the office during the period of suspension and denied the allegations of receipt of Rs,35,000 and that charge was not proved against him. He has next urged that excluding the charge of acceptance of Rs,35,000 which was not proved against him, the punishment of dismissal from service on the other two charges was excessive.
4. The appeal is directed against the Government of Pakistan and the Director-General, FIA. None has appeared on their behalf. A telegram has been received from Director-General, FIA, requesting that time may be granted by one month' for filing objections. The appeal was filed on 23-1-1985. It was admitted on 11-2-1985. Its notices were issued to the respondents. They have not filed objections till this date. None cared even to put up appearance at the date of hearing. The appeal has, therefore, been heard ex parte of the respondents. The appeal was heard in presence of Mr. Niaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate, who is the standing counsel for the Government of Pakistan. He was invited to associate in hearing of the appeal. He stated that he did not have instructions. However, he watched the proceedings.
5. As mentioned above, the appellant was awarded punishment of dismissal from service on three counts viz. (i) having failed to join the training course; (ii) having failed to report his presence at the place of his posting during the course of his suspension; and (iii) having accepted illegal gratification of Rs,35,000. His explanations to the charges incorporated in separate show-cause notices were not found satisfactory by the authority. We have perused his replies to the show- cause notices. His replies to the first two charges were rightly rejected by the authority as they did not satisfactorily explain the appellant's failure to join the training course and attend the office. He had denied the allegations of acceptance of illegal gratification. Those allegations needed to be proved by recording evidence. No inquiry was held in those allegations. That charge was, therefore, not proved against him. The learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the appellant could be proceeded against on charges (i) and (ii) by serving on him show-cause notices and considering his written replies thereto, but he has contended that the appellant could not be held guilty of the third charge without recording evidence. He has advanced the arguments that the appellant was liable, at the most, to have been awarded one of the minor penalties. We are of the view that the appellant was guilty of misconduct on account of first two charges, but the third charge did not stand established against him. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order to the extent of holding the appellant guilty of misconduct on the charges of his having failed to join the training course and his failing to report his presence at the place of his posting during his suspension, but set aside the order as regards his alleged guilt on the third charge of acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs,35,000. Consequently, the quantum of punishment does need consideration. The extreme penalty of dismissal from service does not seem to be called for on the charges (i) and (ii) the appellant has been held guilty of-We, therefore, modify the punishment of appellant's dismissal from service to his reduction to the next below post for a period of three years. The appeal is allowed to that extent.