' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Mr. Mohammad Merajuddin was an officer, Computer Service, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). He was compulsorily retired from service of the Corporation under order dated 8-1-1987. His departmental appeal was rejected as per letter dated 5-4-1987 addressed to him by the Admn. Manager (Admn.) He then preferred this appeal on 6-5-1987.
2. The impugned action against the appellant was taken on the charges served on him by way of show-cause notice dated 20-10-1986, issued by the Manager, Coordination/Admn. Manager (DPS).
The show-cause notice is reproduced below in extenso: PIA DIRECTOR DPS SECRETARIAT CONFIDENTIAL DPS/P-44970/86 October 20, 1986. Mr. Mohammad Merajuddin, P/44970 DATA PROCESSING SERVICES Sub:- SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
1. Reference your letter dated October 13, 1986 you are required to explain the following allegations against you.
(a) You were sent to USA for 12 days to get training for Momentum Computers w,e,f, April 16, 1985. As against this you stayed there for 48 days from April 16, 1985 to May 23, 1985, thus exceeding your original stay by 36 days without approval of the competent authority. You, therefore, remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for more than 10 days from April 29, 1985 to May 23, 1985 which is a misconduct under the rules of the Corporation.
(b) Further, vide Personnel Order No, 01/September 1986 dated September 04, 1986, you were transferred from Karachi to Lahore.Till to date you have not reported for duty at Lahore. This tantamounts to wilful insubordination and disobedience to the lawful orders of the Management which again is a misconduct under the rules of the Corporation.
2. You are, therefore, required to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for unauthorised absence and disobedience to the lawful orders of the Management.
3. Your reply should reach the undersigned within 72 hours from the time of receipt of this letter by you failing which strict disciplinary action will be taken against you.
(Sd.) RAZZAK SIDDIQUE, MANAGER COORDINATION/ ADMIN MANAGER (DPS)."
3. The appellant submitted a lengthy reply dated 26-10-86 to the show-cause notice. At the outset, he challenged the authority and jurisdiction of the Manager Coordination/Admin Manager (DPS) in having issued the show cause notice. He also took the plea that orders of his transfer were not competently issued and he had preferred an appeal to the Managing Director and pending decision on his representation, the issuance of the notice was premature and illegal and no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated on such order. He further stated that he had submitted his resignation on 13-10-1986 and he was awaiting orders thereon. As regards his over-stay in USA where he had gone for training, he stated that his stay there was extended due to change in the schedule of the training and he had sent such intimation to the concerned authority. In addition, he made a grievance that his TA claim in respect of that programme in USA had remained unsettled.
As regards his transfer orders, he stated that he received the transfer order on 8-9-1986 and on the same day he addressed a letter to the DDPS for reconsideration of his transfer to Lahore on compassionate grounds of sickness of his mother and he also met the DDPS in that respect on 14- 9-1986. He further stated that he addressed a letter to the DDPS on 2-10-1986 on the same subject and then made an appeal to the Managing Director on 6-10-1986 and he awaited response to his representations and appeal. He also made a grievance of non-payment of his salary etc. He made following "concluding remarks" in his written reply to the show cause notice: "In view of the facts stated above it is apparent that I was dealt with in an unethical, unprofessional and biased manner after my transfer to DPS department nine months ago. The intent of Director DPS has been to force me out of service by committing the acts described above, creating financial hardships, administrative problems, and family problems. All along a campaign of villification and harassm ent has been launched against me. The intent is malicious and this can be proved beyond doubt."
4. The charges were inquired into by Mr. Javed Iqbal Randhawa, an officer of Manpower Planning Division. He, by his report dated 23-11-1986, held the appellant guilty of both the charges. The appellant was then served a final show-cause notice dated 4-12-1986 and was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing. Finally, the order of his compulsory retirement from service was notified to him on 8-1-1987. His departmental appeal filed on 3-2-1987 was rejected as per letter dated 5-4-1987.
5. The main grounds urged in the memo. Of appeal and reiterated at the hearing of the appeal are that the show-cause notice was not issued by the competent authority and grounds of action were not furnished; copies of certain documents were not supplied, and one defence witness by name Muhammad Saleem Khan was not summoned to give evidence in the appellant's support. Two grounds were urged on facts that the over-stay of the appellant in USA during the course of training was approved by the concerned authorities and appellant's representations were pending in respect of his transfer orders and above all his resignation was not accepted.
6. The respondents have opposed the appeal urging that the departmental proceedings against the appellant were taken in accordance with the rules and he was held guilty of both the charges at the regular inquiry and he deserved the punishment awarded to him.
7. The appellant was proceeded against on two charges, one of his over-stay in USA for 36 days without approval of the competent authority, and another that of his non-compliance with the order of his transfer to Lahore. On the first charge, the defence of the appellant was that the schedule of the training in USA was changed and therefore he had to over-stay. He also took the plea that a telex was sent to the headquarters apprising the authorities of the change in the schedule of the training and reliance was placed on a telex in reply from an officer of the PIAC. The over-stay of the appellant became controversial on technical grounds and, therefore, he was not liable to have been punished on that score. As regards the second charge of his disobedience to the order of his transfer to Lahore, the facts taken from the written reply filed by the appellant were that he received the transfer order dated 4-9-1986 on 8-9-1986. He made representation on the same day for reconsideration of his transfer to Lahore. He met the DDPS in that respect on 14-9- 1986 and then addressed a letter to him on the same subject on 2-10-1986. He made an appeal to the Managing Director on 6-10-1986. He did not proceed to the place of his new posting and instead he submitted resignation application on 13-10-1986. The departmental proceedings were initiated on 26-10-1986. It follows that the appellant resisted the order of his transfer and adopted stubborn attitude and the trend of his mind could be read from what he stated in the "concluding remarks" in his written reply, reproduced above. Since he was sent for training at the Corporation's expenses, there was reasonable ground for not accepting his resignation as he had involved himself in defying the orders of the Corporation. He therefore, deserved the punishment on the second charge. The punishment of compulsory retirement from service is not onerous in view of the misconduct of the appellant demonstrated by him by disobeying the order of transfer and throwing unethical aspersions on his authorities in his representations etc.
8. As regards the legal objections of the competency of the officers having taken the proceedings, the first show-cause notice was issued by the Manager Coordination/Admin. Manager (DPS), from the office of the Director, DPS Secretariat and it was made known to the appellant by the Director, DPS under his letter dated 28-10-1986 that the notice was issued under his directions. The final show-cause notice was issued by the Admn. Manager and the impugned order was issued under the orders of the competent authority. There are several formations in the PIAC Administration set up and the notices issued by the officers in the Administration Secretariat met the requirement of the rules and the operative order was issued by the competent authority. Of course no separate statement of allegations was furnished to the appellant but the allegations against him were stated in the show-cause notice itself and that met the requirement of the rules. The appellant was furnished a copy of the inquiry report alongwith the final show-cause notice. The denial of copies of the documents after the order of punishment was made did not materially affect the validity of the proceedings. Thus, there does not seem any legal lacuna in the proceedings taken against the appellant.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders are maintained on the basis of only second charge against the appellant that he had disobeyed the I C order of his transfer to Lahore and made himself liable for disciplinary action. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order is made for costs.