' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Havildar Muhammad Roshan Khan while working as Education Instructor under Commandant, Frontier Corps Battle School, Mirali, was detailed on escort duty with Capt. Ijaz Ahmed, Education Officer, F.C. Battle School, Mirali who was proceeding to H.Q. South Waziristan Scouts, Wana for conducting educational examinations on 17th and 18th March, 1993. It was found that while conducting examination, illegal gratification was taken from candidates. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against Capt. Ijaz Ahmad, Naib- Subedar Muhammad Yousuf and the appellant. A Court of Inquiry was constituted by Commandant to inquire into the charge and it was proved by the Court of Inquiry that a sum of Rs,35,000 was collected by Naib-Sub. Muhammad Yousuf as illegal gratification from the candidates, and out of that amount, Rs,23,000 was taken by Capt. Ijaz Ahmed and it is alleged that appellant also got Rs,5,500 as his share from N/Sub. Muhammad Yousuf. On the basis of findings of the Court of Inquiry, the appellant was imposed the penalty (a) reduced to rank, (b) to be dismissed from service and (c) to undergo one year R.I. In Civil Jail, vide order dated 27-3-1994.
Being aggrieved he filed appeal dated 12-4-1994 to the I.-G., F.C., Peshawar. He made another appeal dated 1-6-1994 to the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, and finally by order dated 23-6-1994 the appellant was informed that under the rules he was not entitled to reinstatement in service. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal under section 4 of the. Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. Mr. Zafar Mahmood Khattak, Advocate has argued that the appellant has been awarded three punishments which are illegal and the order of dismissal be set aside. It is submitted that there is no allegation against appellant of taking bribe from any candidate and he being an escort duty had nothing to do with the examination. It is argued that Capt. Ijaz Ahmed realising the situation that the matter had come to the notice of the higher authorities, he ordered N/Sub. Muhammad Yousuf to pay Rs, 5,500 to the appellant, so that he may keep quiet and may not disclose this fact to anyone. It is vehemently contended that the appellant was threatened and harassed and detained and finally on the promise that he will not give any evidence against Capt. Ijaz Ahmed till he was released and was given Rs,5,500. It is submitted that the appellant was recruited as civilian in the Frontier Corps on 8-3-1977 and he is not an Armed Forces personnel, therefore, this Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
3. Mr. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, the learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondents and, at the very outset, has taken the point of jurisdiction and argued that the appellant is a Defence Personnel and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. With regard to merits, it is submitted that the allegations against the appellant were serious as he accepted Rs,5,500 as his share to remain silent till the matter was detected and as such he has rightly been punished under the provisions of Ordinance as there was clear admission by him and there is no illegality.
4. Since the point of jurisdiction has been taken, therefore, we would like to determine this question first. The Frontier Corps has been established under Ordinance No,XXVI of 1959, called the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to 1959 Ordinance) and it consists of Deputy Inspector- General and Inspector-General appointed under section 5 Junior. Commissioned Officer means a person commissioned, gazetted or in pay, as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Frontier Corps and Member of the Frontier Corps means a person other than a person appointed under section 5 by the Central Government who at the commencement of this Ordinance is serving in the Frontier Corps or who after the commencement of this Ordinance has been appointed to the Frontier Corps under this Ordinance and has signed a recruiting roll set out in the Second Schedule and the affirmation in the form set out in the Third Schedule, if not already signed by him. Officer means a person, other than a Junior Commissioned Officer, who is commissioned, gazetted or in pay, as an officer of the Pakistan Army, or of the Frontier Corps. There are different categories. Under section 5, the I.-G., D.I.-G. And the Commandants or other officers of the Frontier Corps or other officers of any unit of the Frontier Corps are appointed by the Central Government. Under section 6 appointment of all subordinate officers and other thembers of the Corps is made by the I.-G. Or the Commandant in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. It is clear that Central Government can appoint any person from any service as I.-G. And its subordinate officers are appointed by the I.-G. Or the Commandant, as the case may be, in the manner prescribed. We are of the view that such subordinate officers appointed by the I.-G. Are not governed under the Pakistan Army Act and are pot the persons from Army, therefore, being employees of the Frontier Corps, working in connection with the affairs of the Federation, are civil servants. The same position is in the Pakistan Rangers where Army Officers are seconded and lower staff is appointed under the Rangers Act, and they are also civil servants and amenable to jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Therefore, the objection of the respondents' counsel is repelled.
5. On merits, the action against the appellant was taken in exercise of the powers vested under section 9(p) read with section 10, whereby under this section by way of summary proceedings the punishments could be awarded to any employee. The punishments are (a) reduction in rank, (b) fine, (c). Rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and removal from service, under section 11, it is clear that a person who sentenced to imprisonment may be removed or dismissed from service. Therefore, the abovementioned punishments awarded to the appellant have been taken care of and are regulated under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance. As mentioned in para. 3 of the memo. Of appeal, the appellant was serving as Education Instructor under the Command of Capt. Ijaz Ahmed, therefore, it cannot be said that he had nothing to do with Capt.
Ijaz Ahmed, but he was very much a member of the Team comprising of Capt. Ijaz Ahmed and N/Subedar Muhammad Yousuf. The appellant admitted that he received Rs,5,500 but his contention is that he was forced to accept the same. The incident took place on 18-3-1993 when he took the money. He remained silent and did not return the money till the matter came to light and the amount was recovered from his salary whereafter the appellant was arrested on 27-4-1994.
Therefore, the appellant cannot claim that he was forced to receive the money. Had it been so, he should have immediately reported the matter to the higher authorities and returned the money but he got his share and remained silent till the matter came to surface and inquiry was ordered. The learned counsel for the respondents informed that co-accused Capt. Ijaz Ahmed and N/Subedar Muhammad Yousuf have been awarded punishment of dismissal, but without prejudice to their case, whatever may be the circumstances, but there is clear admission by the appellant that he received the amount and, therefore, he could not absolve himself of the liabilities of disciplinary proceedings and award of punishments. He was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for one year which he suffered and on acquittal of that punishment, he has rightly been dismissed. The impugned order is unexceptionable and the appeal being without merit is dismissed with costs.