' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The above five appeals through leave of this Court calling in question the judgment and order dated 9-3-1998 delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal will be disposed of through this order because identical questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals.
2. The appellants are employees in the service of the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation (O.P.F.). On 9- 2-1998, the O.P.F. Issued the following show-cause notices to the appellants:-- OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS FOUNDATION ' No, OPF/Sectt/Pers/1029/98 Islamabad, the 9th February, 1998.
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ' Whereas, you Mr. Muhammad .Yar Bhuttar, posted as Director (Finance)/Director (Housing & Works) have been found responsible for committing following serious irregularities as determined by a High Powered Committee appointed under the authority of the Ministry of LM&OP, by misuse of powers, violation of rules and regulations, mismanagement, negligence and inefficiency in discharge of your duties in connection. With External Development Works of Phase-III and Additional External Development Works of Phases-I and II of Chitterpari Housing Scheme, Mirpur (A.K.), specially you:--
(i) Failed to point out irregularities in the award of work.
(ii) Failed to point out that conditional negotiated offer of the Contractor M/s. United Builders (Pvt.)
Ltd., was against the rules and liable to rejection of tenders.
(iii) Failed to process ex-post facto approval of the award of work by the B.O.G., before the release of the contractors' payments.
(iv) Recommended changes in the conditions of the contract relating to acceptance of insurance bonds instead of bank guarantees in respect of Mobilisation Advance and Performance Bond, in blatant violation of the conditions of the tender.
(v) Recommended acceptance of all Insurance Bonds from M/s. Alpha Insurance Co., instead of Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co., and Adamjee Insurance Co., (as stipulated in the Tender Documents), after award of work.
(vi) Failed to ensure proper documentation of the Contract Agreement, before issuance of Letter of Intent' and Work Order.
(vii) Released payment of first instalment of the Mobilisation Advance (Rs,2.425 million) on 15-7- 1996, before issuance of Work Order on 17-7-1996.
(viii)Released payments of Mobilisation Advance (Rs,4.851 million) and First Running Bill (Rs,2.663 million) to the Contractor, without approval of the B.O.G.
(ix) Recommended payment of Second Running Bill to the Contractor without exercising proper check/detection of fictitious claims on account of earthwork, compaction of embankment and huge rock cutting (as additional item of work).
2. And whereas the above acts on your part tantamount to corruption and misconduct in terms of Regulation 6.03 (1)(ii)(c) and 6.03-(2) (viii) and (ix) of O.P.F. Employees Services Regulations, 1993 and call for a major penalty of dismissal from O.P.F. Service in terms of Regulation 6.04(1)(b)(vii).
3. Now, therefore, you Mr. Muhammad Yar Bhuttar are hereby called upon to show cause in writing within 14 days of the receipt of this show-cause notice as to why the major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on you. You should also state whether you desire to be heard in person. If no reply to this show-cause notice is received within the specified period, ex parte action shall be taken against you which shall be final and irrevocable.
(Sd.)
Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Managing Director, Authorised Officer.
Mr. Muhammad Yar Bhuttar, Directror (H & W), OPF, Islamabad. (under suspension)
' Show-cause notices were also issued to the other four appellants with the same wording, but with different allegations, which are reproduced against each:--
(1) Mr. Bayar Khizar: "Approved X-Section of the Road 'B' showing R.O.W. As 25m, without consulting the estimate/BOQ prepared by the Consultants and without approval from the competent Authority, which resulted in huge cutting of earthwork and unnecessary increase in the cost of work."
(2) Mr. Sved Samir Haider:
(i) Recommended revision of the cost estimate from Rs,33.083 million to Rs,39.500 million, without recording valid justification.
(ii) Recommended payments as G.M. (H&W) to the Contractor without exercising proper checks to detect fictitious measurements/claims of the contractor."
(3) Mr. Mehmood Akhtar Sherazi:
(i) Recommended-revision of the estimates without any valid justification, which resulted in escalation of the cost by 19%.
(ii) Failed to point out irregularities in the award of work to the contractor.
(iii) Issued the Letter of Intent and Work Order to M/s. United Builders (Pvt.) Ltd., without approval of the Board of Governors of O.P.F.
(iv) Failed to process ex-post, facto approval of the award of work by the Board of Governors before releasing payments to the contractor. "
(4) Mr. Ihsanul Haq Khokhar: "Verifying/test checking the bogus and fictitious (Second Running) bill submitted by the Contractor."
(5) Qazi Mubashir Hussain:
(i) Revision of the already approved cost estimate from Rs,33.083 million to Rs,39.500 million without recording valid justification and taking approval from the M.D./B.O.G.
(ii) You recommended conditional negotiated rate with the contractor for acceptance against the rules."
3. It may be stated that the appellants being employees of the O.P.F. Are governed by the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1993 (hereinafter called as the Regulations). All the appellants by virtue of the show-cause notices issued to them were called upon to show cause within 7 days as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them.
On 3-2-1997, the appellants sent replies to the show-cause notices. In response thereto charges were framed and charge-sheet was served upon each of the appellants in April 1997. Finding the replies unsatisfactory, the O.P.F. Appointed Mr. Habibullah Tarar as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer directed the. Appellants to put in their defence in writing and also to state whether they would like to be heard in person. The Inquiry Officer after perusal of the replies to the charge-sheets served upon the appellants, submitted his report and on the basis thereof a high powered committee was constituted under the authority of the Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis to probe into the allegations against the appellants. The high-powered committee found the appellants responsible for committing irregularities. After examining the report of the high- powered committee, on 9-2-1998 the Authorised Officer issued show-cause notices to the appellants specifying their roles. Aggrieved by the issuance of these show-cause notices dated 9- 2-1998, the appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal (Tribunal) to assail the said show-cause notices on the ground that the procedure as laid down in Sub-Regulations
(3) and (4) of Regulation 6.08 of the Regulations had not been followed. The appellants prayed that the notices be declared as illegal, arbitrary and having been issued without lawful authority.
The Tribunal confronted the appellants with the question of maintainability of the appeals because the Tribunal observed that the show-cause notice was not an "order", therefore, the appeals were not maintainable. The appellants pleaded that by virtue of amendment introduced on 10-6-1997 in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, all employees of Corporations managed and controlled by the Government were to be treated as civil servants for the purposes of provisions of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and by virtue of the said amendment in section 4, the word "final" had been omitted and, therefore, after the amendment in section 4, not only against the final order, but against all orders appeals were maintainable. The Tribunal repelled the said contention and held that show-cause notices issued to the appellants did not amount to an order against which an appeal could be filed and, thus, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed". The order of the Tribunal was then assailed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court through petitions seeking leave to appeal and vide order dated 30-6-1998 this Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether in view of the amendment in section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, the show-cause notice issued to the appellants was appealable before the Tribunal or not.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce hereunder provisions of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act dealing with appeals. The said provision runs as under:--
4. Appeals to Tribunals. ---(1) Any civil servant aggrieved by any order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
Provided that:
(a) Where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), or any rules against any such order, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred;
(b) No appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed or to hold particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade; and
(c) No appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of 'a departmental authority made at any time before the 1st July, 1969.
(2) Where the appeal is against an order or decision of a departmental authority imposing a departmental punishment or penalty on a civil servant, the appeal shall be preferred:
(a) in the case of a penalty of dismissal from service, removal from service, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to lower stage in a time-scale, of a Tribunal referred in subsection (3) of section 3; and
(b) in any other case, to a Tribunal referred in subsection (7) of that section.
Explanation: In this section, 'departmental authority' means any authority, other than a Tribunal, which is competent to make an order in respect of any of the terms and conditions of civil servant."
5. Placing reliance on the omission of the word 'final' from section 4. It has been vehemently contended before us that the object of introducing amendment was to make even an interim order appealable before the Service Tribunal and, therefore, the show-cause notices issued to the appellants amounted to order because the same had been issued after conscious application of mind by the competent Authority having decided to proceed against the appellants under the Service Regulations and as such the order was within the contemplation of section 4 after its amendment and, therefore, the appeals filed by the appellants were maintainable. It may be stated here that before 10-6-1997, the Civil Servants Act and the Service Tribunals Act governed the civil servants as defined in the Civil Servants Act and only they could have recourse to the remedy to knock the door of the Tribunal for the enforcement of terms and conditions of their service. A large number of statutory bodies and corporations are controlled and managed by the Government of Pakistan and their employees fell outside the pale of the Civil Servants Act and the Service Tribunals Act. With a view to provide a remedy to such employees the amendment was introduced so as to provide a remedy to such employees to seek the redress of their grievance for enforcement of terms and conditions of their service. Alongwith such amendment. Section 4, as already stated, was also amended and the word 'final' was omitted meaning thereby that any civil servant aggrieved by any order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, could file an appeal. The crucial question arising for determination is whether after the omission of the word 'final' from section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. All orders whatever their nature may be, are appealable or not. In this behalf, it may be stated here that the "order" within the meaning of the Service Tribunals Act has to be interpreted and has to be confined within the four-corners of the Civil Servants Act and the Service Tribunals Act and an appeal against an order is relatable to the terms and conditions of a civil servant. In this context, it is to be seen that if a civil servant like the appellants is being proceeded for disciplinary action, then what type of orders can be issued or passed by a competent Authority. The answer to these questions has been elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal. In such proceedings, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the following orders are to be passed within the contemplation of the rules governing disciplinary action:--
(1) Appointment of Inquiry Officer or Committee.
(2) Show-cause notice
(3) Framing of charge-sheet.
(4) Preparation of statement of allegations.
(5) Second show-cause notice.
(6) Appointment of authorised officer.
(7) Decision of the authorised officer whether inquiry should be conducte by the Inquiry Officer or a committee.
(8) Decision of the authorised officer not to hold an inquiry by an Inquiry Officer or a Committee.
(9) Information to the officer about the action proposed to be taken.
(10) Adjournment during any proceedings.
(11) View of the Inquiry Officer or Committee that the officer was hampering the progress of inquiry.
(12) Various other steps to complete an inquiry.
' In our view, the Tribunal rightly observed that if in the light of the amendment in section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, appeals were maintainable against all the above-noted orders, then it would be an endless inquiry and no inquiry can reach its logicial conclusion. In this behalf, it may be stated here that while interpreting a provision of statute or rules, such interpretation is not to be placed, which would render the object of the statute or rules as futile or which in other words would frustrate the very object of the statute or the rules.
However, we may further add that it will depend upon the nature of each order as to whether appeal against such order is maintainable or not because the abovementioned situations deal with procedural matters. The questions of mala fides and coram non judice, would stand on a different footing.
6. We may further add here that right of appeal is a statutory right and is conferred upon the person aggrieved and the statutes conferring such right also define its scope. No extraneous consideration or matter can be imported in the relevant statute so as to abridge or enlarge scope of appeal. The omission of the word "final" from section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act does not enlarge the scope of the appeal as envisaged by section 4 of the Act. The provision of section 4 lays down the conditions and circumstances in which an appeal is maintainable or not. To illustrate, under section 4(b) and (c), no appeal lies to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a Departmental Authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed or to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade and similarly, no appeal lay against an order or decision of a departmental authority at any time before the 1st of July, 1969. Under section 4(a), an embargo has been placed by the legislature on filing an appeal to the effect that if an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Civil Servants Act or the Rules, against such orders, then no appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal unless the aggrieved person has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of 90 days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was preferred. In our view the scope of the appeal under section 4 is confined only where a person has been dismissed or removed from service or has been compulsorily retired or has been reduced to a lower post or time-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale. Section 4(2)(b) also envisages appeal to the Tribunal in respect of grievances not covered by section 4(a). To sum up, in our view an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act is maintainable only, when the question relates to enforcement of terms and conditions of service of an employee as envisaged by the Service Tribunals Act, and the omission of the word 'final' would not advance the case of the appellants.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended before us that in view of the rule of law laid down in the judgments reported as Senior Superintendent of Police and others v. Waris Khan (1990 SCMR 1358), Alamgir v. Divisional Forest Officer, Multan and others (1993 SCMR 603), Muhammad Nazir Rizvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone-A, Lahore and another (1996 PLC (C.S.) 1) and Masood Pervaiz Siddiqui v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-I, Lahore and another (1996 PLC (C.S.) 282), no full-fledged inquiry had been held and since complicated and controversial questions were involved, therefore, it was incumbent upon the authority to hold an inquiry. However, at this stage, we cannot touch this aspect because it is for the authorities in the O.P.F. To consider this question in the light of the judgments referred to above so as to do justice with the cause of the appellants.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.