NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.----The above appeal arises out of judgment dated 20-8-1996 of the Federal Services Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by appellant Raja Jehandad Ahmed, Inspector, Collectorate of Customs, Lahore Air Port, was dismissed (by majority Judgment) and the order of his removal from service by the department was maintained.
We have heard the arguments of Hafiz Tariq Naseem, learned counsel for the appellant and Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, learned Advocate-on-Record for the department. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have referred to the relevant record.
2. The facts in brief are given in the leave granting Order, dated 3-2-1998 as follows:-- "The facts in brief are that the petitioner while working as Inspector in the Collectorate of Customs at Lahore Airport was served with the charge-sheet on 13-10-1994. Not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, he was issued a show-cause notice on 25-2-1995 and ultimately he was removed from service. The crux of the charge against the petitioner was that he entered the International Customs Hall at the Airport accompanied by a passenger when he was not on duty in that area and, thus, helped passenger Munir Ahmad, who was carrying goods worth Rs,6 million with a view to evading the customs duty. It was further alleged that the petitioner acted in connivance to take out these goods from the Customs area illegally without payment of necessary duty. The appeal of the petitioner before the Tribunal was dismissed vide judgment impugned."
Leave was granted to consider the following contentions raised at the time of hearing of the leave petition:- "(i) That no witness was examined in presence of the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses appearing against him;
(ii) That the most important witnesses, such as Dr. Muhammad Saeed, A.C Customs, Munir Ahmed, passenger, Zahoor Amad and Rab Rawaz, Inspectors were not examined by the Inquiry Officer;
(iii) That the inquiry was just a question-answer session, which is not allowed under the law; and
(iv) That the relevant record had not been produced before the Inquiry Officer in presence of the petitioner, which caused miscarriage of justice."
After hearing learned counsel and going through the record we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal.
3. Appeal before the Tribunal was heard by a Bench comprising two Members. There was a difference of opinion and, therefore, the matter came before the Chairman of the Tribunal under proviso (b) of section 3-A(2) of the Services Tribunal Act, 1973, who agreed with the Member who had dismissed the appeal. The Chairman in his judgment observed that, though the inquiry had not been conducted in accordance with the rules and statements had not been recorded on oath, charges were admitted by the appellant in his reply to the charge-sheet and consequently the appeal was dismissed. It is considered appropriate here to refer to the charge-sheet, dated 13-10- 1994 served upon the appellant which reads as follows:-- "It has been reported that on 24-6-1994. Dr. Muhammad Saeed, Assistant Collector Customs was on duty at Traffic Section Airport Lahore and according to him he received an information that an attempt would be made to smuggle some commercial cargo by Flight No,PK-722 on 24-6-1994. He and the Airport Staff kept strict vigilance on the passengers and their baggage and intercepted the goods of Mr. Munir Ahmad of Lahore. The examination of the goods led to recovery of following goods:--
(1) Super IDE Controller Complete with leads180 pcs.
(2) Hard disket seagate 214-Byte. 320 pcs.
(3) Hard disk Mextor 131-M-Byte. 75 pcs.
(4) VCA mist with two flopy disk size 3.5".85 pcs.
(5) Main board bioteq for 380 + 486 models.75 pcs.
(6) ICS for computer hard-ware 320 pcs.
(7) Itausa Export North ICMBA 40. 320 pcs.
(8) Ram (IMB-256KB Model) 600 pcs The goods were seized under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969. A notice under section 171 of Custom Act, 1969 was also served.
(2) It is worth mentioning that you were not on duty at that time, however, you entered in the International Customs Hall and tried to take the said passenger alongwith his goods out from the Customs Hall. When asked by the Assistant Collector on duty, you replied that the said passenger was your relative and was returning on T.R. Basis and the goods were books and persons wearing apparel. The Assistant Collector on duty was not satisfied and got the baggage examined which resulted in the recovery of aforementioned goods:--
(3) This conduct of Rana Jahandad Ahmad Khan Inspector falls within the definition of 'Misconductunder the rule 2(4) of the Government Servant (E&D) Rules, 1973."
By written reply, dated 19-10-1994, appellant admitted the charges. His reply is as follows:-- "With reference to the charge-sheet served on me vide D.C. Customs Headquarters Lahore Letter, No,11-B/(1)II-35- Conf/94/1963, dated 13-10-1994, I beg to submit as under:--
(1) I am absolutely innocent and have done no wrong. I am a victim of conspiracy. The fact is that two of my departmental colleagues approached me that their relative was coming on T.R. Basis of flight No,PK-722 and that he should assist in the clearance of his baggage. Accordingly I accompanied them to the airport and when the passenger arrived, I met the worthy A.C. On duty and told him the facts and requested him to oblige. A.C., which did not know me before as gracious enough to oblige. He permitted me goods to be taken away. But D.S. On duty, who had seen one of my aforesaid colleagues, with whom he was inimical, meeting concerned passenger and leading his effects on trolly, asked me that at least one carton may be got examined. As I had been given assurance by my colleagues and the passenger also, that there was nothing incriminating I readily agreed to the D.S's. Proposal. I never knew that the carton contained commercial goods. I was sure that my colleagues had told me the truth and as stated by them the carton contained only books and wearing apparels. But I am sorry that my colleagues took undue advantage of my simplicity and credulousness and landed me in trouble.
Sir, I have narrated above the whole facts truly and faithfully and have not misstated or concealed anything, have made clean breast of myself. Now I place myself before your honour and request to be dealt with leniently and sympathetically.
(2) I may also be kindly given a personal hearing. It is, therefore, humbly requested that the suspension order and the charge-sheet may kindly be caused and I may kindly be reinstated w,e,f, 26-6-1994. Thanking you.
I beg to be sir, Yours obediently, (Sd.)
Dated 19-10-1994 Rana Jehandad Ahmad 'Inspector Customs U/S"
We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Chairman of the Tribunal that the charges having been admitted by the appellant, any infirmity in the hearing of the inquiry would not help the case of the appellant. It may be added that learned counsel for the appellant did not deny the factual stand taken by the appellant in his reply to the charge-sheet.
4. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that, in the facts of this case, appellant has been treated very harshly and major penalty of the removal of service was not called for. We find no merit in this submission. Punishment of removal from service could competently be awarded to the appellant, which punishment has been upheld by the Tribunal. It has not been shown that, in confirming the punishment, the Tribunal has acted perversely or arbitrarily.
5. In our view, in facts of this case where charges were admitted by the appellant in his written reply and a penalty was imposed which could lawfully be awarded, this is not a case involving any substantial question of law of public importance. Even otherwise, there is no merit in this appeal.
Consequently this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.