' MUKHATAR AHMED JUNEJO, J---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan and the Administrator, Northern Areas, Government of Pakistan, against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No, 165 (R) of 1993.
2. Said appeal was filed by respondent Ghulam Nabi against his dismissal from the post of Civil Supply Inspector.
3. A heavy shortage of wheat and empty gunny bags was detected in the Stock of said articles kept in the Sale/Bulk Depot at Skardu which was in charge of respondent Ghulam Nabi, in his capacity as Civil Supply Officer Skardu. Hence the Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Baltistan was moved by the Director, Civil Supplies and Transport Northern Area to pass Ascertainment Order after holding proper proceedings. Deputy Commissioner/Collector passed Ascertainment Order mentioning therein that Rs,24,27,977. 80 as cost of 819141 Kilograms of wheat found short and cost of 7229 gunny bags found short, were recoverable from the respondent. The Director, Civil Supplies and Transport Nothern Areas issued a show-cause notice dated 5-11-1989 calling upon the respondent to show cause, as to, why the amount of Rs, 19,00,472.80 being the balance landed cost of the wheat and the gunny bags found short, should not be recovered from him besides imposing upon him other major penalties which may involve his dismissal from service.
Respondent sent his reply dated Nil to the said show-cause notice. Under an Order dated 19-11- 1989, the Administrator Northern Areas, as the Authority under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 ordered dismissal of the respondent from service besides ordering recovery of Rs,19,00,472.80 from him, being the landed cost of 615,777 Kilograms of wheat and of 7229 empty gunny bags misappropriated. Said Order dated 19-11-1989 was assailed by the respondent before the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No, 165(R) of 1993 filed on 31-5-1993.
4. Under impugned judgment dated 5-10-1993, the Federal Service Tribunal (hereafter mentioned as the Tribunal) accepted the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal and ordered re-instatement of the respondent into service with effect from the date of dismissal and remanded the case to the concerned Department to take further action if necessary in light of the observations/directions made in said judgment. The observations by the Tribunal to which exception has been taken by the petitioners read as below:- "This looks dubious that during this period from 1970 to 1984, if the shortages had existed against the appellant why the seniors had ignored and kept him in the job and not suspended, removed or dismissed him from service much earlier? There is a substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the seniors who were responsible of these shortages and who had been reaping the harvest during this period of 18 years from 1970 to 1989 did not like to make proper enquiry in the fear of getting themselves involved/charged and they had made the appellant a scape-goat by putting all the burden and blame on him and got him gismissed just before his retirement."
5. Mr Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, learned Advocate, Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal had gone beyond its jurisdiction by widening the scope of enquiry, which is to be conducted against the respondent. Learned counsel referred to section 5 of Service Tribunal's Act, 1973 and argued that the Tribunal while deciding an appeal can either confirm, or vary or modify the order appealed against but it cannot direct enqiry in the terms in which it has been ordered in the present case.
6. We are not impressed by submissions made at the Bar. Normally an order of remand is not interfered with, unless it has raised an issue of a public importance. No such question has arisen in the present petition. The order about holding of enquiry against some unnamed Officers of the same Department, could have been made even by the concerned Department of the appellants.
An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings. If the authority which passed the impugned order could have directed enquiry against the Senior Officers responsible for the shortages, there is no reason to deprive the Tribunal from passing such an order.
7. For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that no case is made out for interfering with the impugned judgment. Consequently the leave sought is refused and this petition is dismissed.