ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER). ---The appellant has challenged impugned order dated 20th August, 1995 which he received on 12-9-1995; and whereby his services were terminated, after conducting the disciplinary proceeding against him on the grounds of disobedience. He submitted his departmental appeal against the impugned order, on 25-9-1995, but was rejected by the competent Authority vide order dated 10th October, 1995. Hence this appeal.
2. The facts of the case as stated in the memo. Of appeal are that, the appellant was appointed as Staff Car Driver in BPS-4 in the Justice Division vide order dated 27th April, 1988 to perform his duties in the office of Attorney --General at Karachi.
3. On 12-4-1995, the appellant received a copy of letter, written and signed by Mr. Qazi Jamil Ahmed, Attorney-General, directing him to report for duty in Islamabad Office immediately.
4. A show-cause notice dated 21st May, 1995 was issued to him which he received on 25-5-1995, whereby he was directed to put his written defence, within 14 days, for disobeying the orders of the Attorney-General and if desired tote heard in person. The appellant submitted his defence reply on 4-6-1995, whereby he stated that his wife was an old patient of dysentery and Sciatic pain. Besides this there was no male member in the family to look after his wife and four daughters who are school going and are at the tender age. However, he was removed from service vide order dated 20th August, 1995.
The appellant preferred a departmental appeal to the Attorney-General on 25-9-1995. But the same was rejected vide letter dated 10th October, 1995.
5. Mr. Imtiaz Ali Effendi, Advocate appeared for the appellant. However, Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, learned Standing Counsel, represented the respondents.
6. Pleading the appellant's case, his learned counsel argued that the order of the removal of the appellant was unjustified as no proper procedure was adopted. In his opinion, the appellant should have been charge-sheeted, and proper inquiry instituted against him to prove guilty or otherwise.
It was submitted that the appellant was appointed for posting at Karachi Camp as per terms and conditions provided in the appointment letter dated 27th April, 1988. In spite of that, the appellant obeyed the orders and got his ticket reserved but due to his domestic problem, he could not proceed on.
The transfer letter was issued directly by the Attorney-General of which he was not the competent Authority (sic) this he was not afforded personal hearing. His removal from service, it was observed, was mala fide. Above all, it was pleaded that the administration should have taken into consideration, the domestic problems of the appellant who was a low-paid employee but devoted and loyal one. The hasty action of removing the appellant from his service, has deprived him of his livelihood, and let his family to starve during these critical days of his life, when a low-paid employee is hardly able to make both ends meet.
7: The appellant being unable to comply with the transfer orders requested for leave in case he could not be accommodated, but that to was not granted to him, the Bar was informed.
Also it was brought to the notice of the Bar, that the appellant has been provided with the Government accommodation which would be snatched from him after his removal, as such his family would be thrown out on the road. With these submissions, it was prayed that impugned order be set aside, and appellant be reinstated in the service, with all back benefits.
8. The objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has bet admitted therein, that the transfer order of the appellant signed by the Attorney --General but it has also been contended that if the department was not fully aware of the said posting. It has further been contended if the appellant was n: removed, after completing disciplinary proceeding against him. It has also bee clarified that Appellate Authority and as well as Attorney-General considered the appeal of the appellant.
It has been further submitted that appellant was transferred 3-4-1995. But he did not report for duty at Islamabad, even after the expiry one month. Hence he was issued show-cause notice on the ground of no; obedience of office direction. The appellant was afforded full opportunity to join his duties at Islamabad, but instead of joining duty at Islamabad, he sent an application for 365 days'-leave on the pretext of serious illness of his wife, on full pay.
9. It has been vehemently contended, if the appellant's appointment was only for Camp Office, Karachi. It was maintained that under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, "every civil servant shall be liable to serve anywhere within or outside Pakistan on any post under Federal or any Provincial Government or local authority, or Corporation or body set up or established by such Government". The appellant was posted to work in the same cadre and his financial benefits had not to be affected on account of his transfer. It was further submitted that the Attorney-General is fully competent to make transfer of his Staff. Based upon above submission it has been prayed that the appellant's appeal be dismissed.
10. We have heard the parties, and perused that record before us. The perusal of the transfer order of the appellant reveals that it was made on the ground, that he was not required at Karachi, therefore, he was transferred to Islamabad, where was needed more. Besides this under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, any civil servant is liable to be transferred anywhere in Pakistan.
Moreover the appellant's appointment does not contain any provision if he would not be transferred to other places.
11. Another letter dated 30th April, 1995, addressed to Joint Secretary, Law and Justice Division, by the Joint Secretary in the office of A.-G., Islamabad, shows that the services of the appellant were required at the Islamabad Office of the Attorney-General, that is why he was directed to report for duty at Islamabad Office. Despite repeated instructions given to the appellant (through Mr. S.M.
Zaidi, Assistant Private Secretary to Attorney-General's Office, Karachi) the appellant did not report for duty in Islamabad. Instead he sent an application expressing his inability to report for duty in Islamabad, on the grounds of the illness of his wife, and further requested to grant him leave for one year from 1-5-1995 to 30-4--1996 on full pay.
12. It has further been clarified in the said letter that leave requested was not admissible to him. His refusal/disobedience to report for duty in Islamabad had been treated as "disobedience" in terms of Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Thus in view of that the Attorney-General desired that his service be terminated. Such an action was to be taken under intimation to that office.
13. From the above, it becomes clear that whatever the reason, it appears that the appellant is not willing to join his duties at Islamabad. This became obvious from the fact that despite repeated instructions to him to join his duty at Islamabad, but he did not even care to reply, and instead made an application to grant him leave on full pay for 365 days. We therefore, are of the opinion that our interference into the action already taken by the Department would not be justified, since it would affect the discipline of the Department adversely.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal having no substance is dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. Parties be informed.