' MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17-5-1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, (hereinafter called as the Tribunal) in Appeal No, 29(R) of 1994 filed by the petitioner challenging the order of respondent No, 1 dated 25-8-1993 whereby the petitioner had been dismissed from service as Graduate Trained Teacher. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 17-5-1994 had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Matric Trained Teacher on 25-11-1970 by the Government of Punjab at Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi. He was subsequently appointed again as a Matric Trained Teacher in BPS-6 at Federal Government Boys Primary School, Nai-Abadi, Khanna, Islamabad vide office order dated 15-8-1992. The petitioner passed his B.A. Examination from the Punjab University held in January, 1987. He also claimed to have passed his B.Ed. Examination in the year 1989 and, therefore, he was promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher (BPS-15) on 31-5-1990 and was posted to Federal Government Boys High School, Bagh Panwal. Again he claimed to have got Master of Arts Degree in History and accordingly laid a claim to the Director of Schools for grant of three advance increments. Some doubts had surfaced qua the genuineness of the result cards in respect of the last mentioned two examinations. The matter was twice referred to the Controller of Examinations, University of Punjab, Lahore, for verification of the two questioned result cards. The Assistant Controller (Certificates), however, informed that the petitioner had neither passed B.Ed.
Examination nor M.A. (History) Examination and, therefore, both the result cards were bogus. In pursuance of this information, the Director of Schools, issued to the petitioner "'show-cause notice dated 24-12-1990 as to why major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him". An Enquiry Officer was appointed who found him guilty of the charge of gross misconduct within the contemplation of section 2(4) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1973. Nonetheless, the petitioner undertook to produce the original degrees on or before 20- 3-1991 failing which his resignation be accepted. Since the petitioner failed to produce the original degrees by the stipulated date, the Department communicated to him the acceptance of his resignation. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitibner in the first round challenged before the Tribunal in appeal the acceptance of his resignation which succeeded.
Nonetheless it was left to the Department to pursue the proceedings which were pending against the petitioner. In the second round, the Director-General (Education), Government of Punjab again issued the charge-sheet to him to show cause as to why major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 on the following grounds:- "(i) Whereas he produced a forged result card of B.Ed. Passed Examination dated 20-2-1990 for promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, BPS-15."
"(ii) Whereas he also produced a forged result card dated 16-9-1990 of MA. (History) first annual examination held in 1990 for grant of three advance increments for higher qualifications fraudulently which tantamounts to gross misconduct."
"(iii) Whereas an Inquiry Officer was appointed to investigate/confirm the certificates from the University of Punjab."
"(iv) And whereas the University of Punjab has verified "that the said result cards are bogus."
(Sd.)
(Miss Afroz Begum), Director General."
' When the petitioner failed to respond to the aforesaid charge-sheet within the stipulated period, the Respondent Department dismissed him from service with effect from 25-8-1995. On 23-9-1993, the petitioner appealed to the Minister for Education, Government of Pakistan which was not responded to , therefore, he filed on 23-1-1994 an appeal before the Tribunal. (Underlining is ours).
3. The Tribunal was inclined to hold the appeal before it as not maintainable, in that, on the authority of this Court in Mrs. Aqeela Asghar All and others v. Miss Khalida Khatoon Malik and others (PLD 1991 SC 1118) a departmental representation to the Minister was not competent under the relevant law but since the respondent had not taken any exception to the course of action adopted by the petitioner, therefore, it was not dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before the Tribunal and it was reiterated before us that Miss. Afroz Begum, Director-General (Education), Government of Pakistan was not competent to have passed the order impugned before the Tribunal and that Secretary to Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Education was the competent Authority for the purpose. It was then urged that after the remand of the case by the Tribunal in the first round neither any inquiry was conducted nor any fresh charge-sheet had been served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order was vitiated
5. The Tribunal did not entertain either of these contentions holding that the impugned order of petitioners dismissal from service was issued by the Director-General after the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education had approved it, therefore, "no illegality or irregularity had been committed" and that "ordinarily such orders are issued by the subordinates after obtaining approval from the competent Authonty".
' The Tribunal found no substance in the second contention and held that from the copy of the show-cause notice dated 10-2-1993 it transpired that it was despatched at the petitioner's official address at Islamabad as well as at his home address in Gujar Khan and that "it was not believable that the petitioner had not received any of the copies of the said notice at either of the two places."
It was further held that notwithstanding the direction of the Tribunal to hold fresh inquiry in the first round, as a detailed inquiry under rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1973, had been conducted, "it was not necessary in the instant case, as it stood proved during the previous inquiry that the petitioner did not pass his B.Ed. Examination in 1986 and that of MA. In 1990 from the University of Punjab on the basis of which he got his promotion as Trained Graduate Teacher (BPS-15) and also claimed three advance increments after obtaining a bogus degree in MA." It was on this premises that the Tribunal held "the firm view that the petitioner was guilty of committing fraud which was tantamount to misconduct".
6. The observations of the Tribunal on both the propositions, in our considered view, are unexceptionable. Undoubtedly the impugned order of dismissal dated 25-8-1993 has been duly signed by the Director-General in the Federal Directorate of Education. Nonetheless, the words "the Secretary, Education has been pleased to dismiss him from service with immediate effect" furnish sufficient indication that it had been passed by the Secretary to Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Education. Merely because it has been communicated by the Director-General would not detract it from its legality so as to vitiate the proceedings against the petitioner. Again the Tribunal has held the petitioner to have been served with the charge-sheet at his official as well as home addresses and that he had failed to respond thereto. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner additionally urged that the petitioner should have been served through the Principal of his School, as was done in the first round. We do not find any merit in this submission either. It was not mandatory under the Rules to serve the charge sheet through the Head of the Department. Service of the charge-sheet through post at the ordinary address of a civil servant is sufficient compliance of law. In the case of the petitioner, the respondent-Department had taken additional precaution in serving the charge-sheet upon him both at his official and home addresses. We uphold the finding of the Tribunal that the charge-sheet had been properly served upon the petitioner. Upon the wilful omission of the petitioner to respond to the charge-sheet, the competent Authority, in the circumstances, was, therefore, justified in passing the order by examining the record of the Department.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal against the petitioner. Again, since no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in the present case and as the impugned judgment appeared to be just and proper, we are not inclined to grant leave.
8. Leave is accordingly refused.