' Petitioner is a Pilot in the Pakistan International Airlines. Pursuant to a departmental inquiry, he was issued letter, dated 15th June, 2000 by the Chief Pilot Planning and Scheduling, Flight Operations Department, directing him to attend two weeks F-27 Long Refresher Course commencing 19th June, 2000. This, according to the petitioner, was an order adverse to him. During the pendency of this petition the final order was passed which was brought on record through C.M. No 2 of 2000. It reads as under:- "With reference to the show-cause notice served vide Personal Order No,070/MAR/2000, dated 3rd March, 2000 and the subsequent enquiry conducted by Captain Javed Khan, Enquiry Officer vide Enquiry Notice, dated 7th April, 2000.
' You are hereby awarded with the following punishment:-
(1) You are being relegated back to the F-27 as Junior Most First Officer and are stripped of all seniority.
(2) Your conduct will be monitored and the penalty will be reviewed in due course of time when the undersigned deems it fit."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the afore-referred order on the grounds that this order has not been passed by the competent Authority; that the petitioner has no efficacious remedy available to him except to file this petition and that the entire exercise starting from the initiation of inquiry -to the final order passed is tainted with malice. In support of his submissions he relied on Divisional Engineer Phones, Phone Division, Sukkur and another v. Muhammad Shahid and others (1999 SCMR 1526), General Manager OFST Co. Ltd., v. Abdul Rasheed Khan, Member NIRC Islamabad (2000 PLC (C.S.) 180) and Tariq Javed v. Director General FIA Islamabad (1997 PLC (C.S.)
273).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation on the other hand, A while referring to section 2- A of the Federal Services Tribunal Act submitted that besides the departmental appeal, petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal before the Federal Services Tribunal and no case for interference under Article 199 of the Constitution is made out. In support of his submissions learned counsel relied on PIA Corporation v. Kournal Channa (1999 PLC (C.S.) 1539), United Bank Limited v. Manzoor Ahmad (2000 PLC 749), Asadullah Rashid v. Muhammad Muneer (1998 SCMR 2129).
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given anxious considerations to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record pertaining to the inquiry initiated against the petitioner.
5. The precise charge against the petitioner in the recent inquiry which has culminated in the passage of the impugned order was relateable to an allegation that the petitioner purchased a TV set at Dubai Airport Duty Free Shop, did not make payment at the counter, left the place and subsequently his colleague Captain Ilyas Malik made payment in the said shop to avoid embarrassm ent to the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer .While recommending the punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner and which, according to the respondent's learned counsel, was approved by the competent Authority i,e, the Managing Director, had listed eight other instances of previous alleged misconduct against the petitioner which are as under:-- "(1) An F.I.R. No,154 of 1993, dated 8-11-1993 under section 506/279, P.P.C. Police Station lodged against the said First Officer Shehzad Aziz by Mr. Asif Kirmani for an offence committed on 6-11-1993 (that the telephonically threatening and intimidating a lady Mrs, Kirmani). This case was also reported by the Consul General of Pakistan, Pakistan Embassy, USA. This resulted in. First Officer Shehzad Azizi's unauthorized handling of Corporation Documents and willfully tampering with, forging and falsifying information in the said Corporation Documents to substantiate his false statement made in a Court of Law and to the Police Authority. (Documents in question were official log book etc.).
(2) He has known to have misappropriated $ allowances at Hotel Dubai Intercontinental by deceiving the reception staff (Ms Maria) thereby putting under a pecuniary obligation an esteemed colleague, in this instance Capt. Bakhtyar, who felt obliged to pay the amount to save embarrassm ent to, and safeguard the reputation of the Corporation. This was subsequently, reimbursed from F/O. Shehzad Aziz to Capt. Bakhtyar.
(3) Making telephone calls from the hotel in BKK after checking out. The stealing of a bath mat from the PC Hotel Peshawar, and that of a shower from the premises of Sherton Hotel Istambul, are instances that have caused acute embarrassment. Such acts constitute dishonesty, theft and fraud.
(4) Though unrecorded, it is common knowledge that F/O. Shehzad Aziz has been involved in offences of extreme moral turpitude i,e, 2 cases of alleged rape, that of PIA Air. Hostess in Damascus and of a hotel maid in Malaysia.
(5) He has often made off the record fraudulent use of Corporation tickets by allowing others to travel on them thereby blatantly misusing the benefits and facilities provided by the Corporation.
(6) Flight PK-283 on 16-2-1997 highlights F/O. Shehzad Aziz's casual and negligent attitude towards performance of his duties. Late arrival to the aforementioned flight was reported by the operating Captain Wadood Khan.
(7) He has been reported by Capt. Hanif Ameen on 19-11-1997 to be in insubordination due to impertinent and insulting behaviour.
(8) In the past he has been known to resort to 'strong arm tactics' to the extent of physical violence.
This is borne out by an incident where a Saudi National who was F/0. Shehzad Aziz's neighbour, was threatened and suffered physical abuse, which compelled him to seek protection from his Embassy."
6. On the basis of the afore-referred allegations the Inquiry Officer ..Finally concluded as under:-- "In the case of F/o. Shehzad Aziz this could justifiably be termination of service but keeping in mind grave difficulties of reemployment it is recommended that F/O. Shehzad Aziz, P-47393 be relegated back to the F-27 as the Junior Most First Officer having been stripped of all his seniority and severely warned that any other future disciplinary case instituted against him would result in immediate termination of service. This action against F/O. Shehzad Aziz must be initiated as a precedent for future disciplinary cases which will serve to send a clear message within the Organization that indiscipline and misconduct will not be accepted or tolerated and also thereby uphold the integrity of the Flag Carrier and the dignity of the airline employees.
' This decision was endorsed unanimously by all the Chief Pilots who were present in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Director Flight Operations on the above subject."
7. The afore-referred recommendation was duly endorsed and approved by the Managing Director and this Court has seen the original file which bears his endorsement and approval. In terms of the Schedule of Powers, 1997 prepared under the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act 1956 and the Regulations framed thereunder, it is the Managing Director who is competent to order reduction to a lower pay-group and cadre. The appeal against the said order is provided to the Chairman of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation under the same Schedule of Powers, 1997.
In PIA Corporation v. Kournal Charm (1999 PLC (C.S.) 1539), at page 1553, it was held that "we are, therefore, of the view that wherever the service rules or regulations applicable to the employees of a Corporation or statutory body provide for filing of a departmental appeal, such a remedy must be availed before filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal". Besides this right of appeal, petitioner has a right to file appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under section 2-A of the Services Tribunal Act.
' In the afore-referred judgment at page 1557 it was further observed as under:-- "In view of the above stated legal position, the view taken by the Hon'ble Service Tribunal that the service conditions of the respondents were governed in accordance with the provisions of Civil Servant Act, 1973, or the rules of service applicable to civil servants, does not appear to be correct.
The effect of incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 is limited. It only made available to the aggrieved employees of a statutory corporation, authority, body, or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned by controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest, a right of appeal against the order of the departmental authority before the Service Tribunal. However, the terms of conditions of such employees continued to be governed by the rules or regulations which were applicable to them before incorporation of section 2-A in the Services Tribunal Act."
8. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. The judgment reported in 1999 SCMR 1526 pertains to operator (BPS-7) in PTC (Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation) whose appeals had been allowed by the Federal Service Tribunal having assumed jurisdiction under section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act. The judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was set aside inter alia on the ground as under:-- "The above cases, it is admitted before us related to the period before introduction of section 2-A in the Service Tribunal .Act, 1997. It is, therefore, quite obvious that if a person was not a civil servant within the meanings of Civil Servants Act, he could not avail of the remedy provided under the Service Tribunal Act."
Similarly, in the judgment of this Court reported in 2000 PLC page 180, daily wage workers of a Telecommunication Company whose' grievance petition had been entertained by the N.LR.C. And the said assumption of jurisdiction had been challenged in a Constitutional petition which was dismissed by this Court.
9. For what has been discussed above I see no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.