NASIM SABIR SYED (MEMBER).---This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 17-7-1997.
2. The only charge levied in this case is that the General Manager, Lahore, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., charged the appellant for taking off clothes in the office premises in front of the consumers which was highly indecent, immoral, disgusting and absolutely intolerable. After holding the inquiry the appellant was dismissed from service.
3. Learned counsel for the Company has raised a preliminary objection that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this case because Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., is an independent, artificial juridical person, having its own system of control over its business activities through the Board of Directors. It was argued that the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., being an independent person, it cannot be held to be either controlled by the Government of Pakistan or owned by it. To support the point of view, reference was made to PLD 1984 SC 385 and PLD 1990 SC 452. To understand the implications of this argument and the statutory provisions newly inserted section 2-A on 7-6-1997, in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-- "2-A. Service under certain corporations, etc. to be service of Pakistan.---Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act."
A reading of this section shows two things. One is the intention of the Legislature to bring the service of certain corporations etc. to be service of Pakistan. The types of corporations service in which was designed to be considered as service of Pakistan are as under:--
(i) Service under any authority, corporation, body or organization, established by or under a Federal law; or
(ii) Which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government; or
(iii) In which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest.
It has been further clarified that the person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973. What is noteworthy is that all these are alternative provisions and a person becomes a deemed Government servant if conditionality's are met with.
3-A. We have read in detail the two orders of the Honorable Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the SNGL Company and are of the opinion that the issue involved in those cases and the present case are absolutely different. In the cases cited above, the respected Judges of the Supreme Court have held that in the case of a corporate body, it is the Board of Directors which controls the day to day affairs and it is not relevant what was the percentage of the capital contributed by the Government. The respected Judges have also made a fine distinction between the regulatory powers of a Government and the powers to be exercised as the owner of something.
So, they were of the view that even if the Government regulates some of the functions performed by a corporate body, even then it cannot be said to be the owner of that company. It was also clarified that the corporate body was Taxable which makes it a distinct body from the Government.
In the present case it is not a question of ownership or control by the Government which was of crucial importance in the cases cited. What is important here is that service under certain corporation has been deemed to be considered to be service of Pakistan under the condition laid down in section 2-A. Here it is very clear that the terms "controlling share or interest" only means the shareholding in the Company, and it is well-established principle both under the corporate law and accountancy that normally the ownership of 51% of the capital contributed enables any person to control the affairs of the Company and sometimes even with a lower percentage. The share contribution in some of the recently privatized Companies by the Privatization Commission was as low as 25% and yet the control and management has been given to the bidders. A careful reading of section 2-A makes it abundantly clear the words "ownership and interest" have been used in a limited sense and it is very clear that the Legislature wanted some types of persons serving under certain corporations to be taken as civil servants and this intention is abundantly clear. So, we are of the opinion that the cases quoted by the learned counsel are distinguishable in the sense that issue involved in this case is absolutely different from the issues discussed and adjudicated upon by the respected Judges of the Supreme Court. Hence we shall decide this case on merit.
4. As far as becoming naked is concerned by stripping of clothes there is no dispute about it because the appellant has also acknowledged that he did it under distress because he was attacked by a swa rm of bees. According to him some of them entered in clothes. To get rid of them, there was no alternative but to strip off the clothes. The objection like the fact that no eyewitnesses were produced, loses its relevance when the appellant himself accepted that he did take off his clothes. An objection has also been raised that the inquiry report has not been written by the Inquiry Officer but somebody else. Actually this report is a record of proceedings of inquiry in which the questions raised by the Inquiry Officer and the answers given by the appellant have been considered. Mere writing of an inquiry report in the hand of somebody else, does not make it legally defective in any way. In almost all enquiries the enquiry is made by the Inquiry Officer and the inquiry report is typed by a subordinate. The appellant has not been able to give any cogent reason that it has adversely affected his right of defence in any way. A medical certificate has been produced which was obtained by visiting the Hospital on the same day as that of occurrence of the incident. This certificate only writes "bite by insect" and recommends rest for one day. It is rather strange that when a person is attacked by a swarm of bees, the result is only "insect bite" which conveys as if the appellant has been bitten by as single bee. Similarly the claim of the appellant that he has to take off clothes because some bees had entered into the clothes is also strange and unbelievable because if somebody is attacked by a swarm of bees, then the reflex action is to cover as much of the body with clothes as possible and not to strip off.
5. After considering all these things, we are of the opinion that stripping off by the appellant during office hours stands proved. It is misconduct of serious nature and cannot be condoned. As a result the dismissal of the appellant from service is upheld. The appeal stands rejected.
6. No order as 'to costs. Parties be informed.