' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Appellant-Akbar Khan was working as an Assistant Incharge in the Office of the Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, having a service of more than 19 years to his credit, when, after 7 months of his alleged receipt of Rs,12,000 from Messrs Mukhtar Ahmed and Fazal Malik representing the amount of Cash Security as also Cost of Service Charges with the cashier of the Tribunal and receipt of Rs,4,000 from one Ali Zaman allegedly to help him in his appeal pending adjudication before the Tribunal, he was charge-sheeted on 6-3- 1993, He submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 29-3-1993 clarifying the position that (1) Rs,1,200 were given to him by 2 complainants, (2) received by him in faith and (3) ultimately returned to them with an extra amount of Rs,500 representing the amount spent by them on coming over to Islamabad. The second charge was denied with the rider that he was being falsely involved by the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal due to professional jealousy.
Suspension from service, inquiry report and remand
2. He was suspended from service and, it is alleged, an inquiry was held without his association therewith and that he was not even allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. A final show-cause notice was issued to him on 10-6-1993, appending thereto a copy of the inquiry report.
In reply, he pointed out the irregularities in the inquiry-proceedings to the authority/Chairman of the Tribunal who remanded the case to the Enquiry Officer vide his order dated 3-7-1993 with a direction to him to submit his report within one week, after observing of the procedural formalities.
After remand
3. It is claimed by the appellant that instead of complying with the order of the Authority in letter and spirit, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with issuing a notice to him on 13-7-1993 to cross-examine the witnesses on the same date i.e, 13-7-1993. Although he was present in the office on 13-7-1993 but, still, the notice was sent to him on his home-address under registered cover in the late hours of the day and the same was received by him at home, on 15-7-1993. On the latter date, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of witnesses in his absence. The earlier inquiry report dated 6-6- 1993 was re-affirmed by making an appendage thereto on 17-7-1993.
Dismissal from service.
4. The Authorized Officer forwarded the case to the authority and the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 20-7-1993.
Departmental appeal and service appeal
5. Appellant's departmental appeal dated 27-7-1993 was not responded to by the respondents and he was obliged to file Appeal No,379 of 1993 on 16-11-1993 before the Tribunal.
6. After hearing ale parties at length and after perusing the material on record, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 22-6-1994, para.11 whereof reads thus: "11. After hearing the above submissions of the parties we are of the opinion that from very beginning to end, the appellant was given full opportunity as he was given show-cause notice alongwith statement of allegations, and he had submitted the reply of the show-cause notice. The evidence of the witnesses were recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the appellant was provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but he intentionally did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witnesses. Even his admission statement was also recorded in which he voluntarily admitted that he had taken Rs,1,200 from the appellants in Appeals Nos.383, 384, 385 and 386 (P) of 1991. His admission before the Deputy Registrar in the presence of the witnesses and his signature and also signatures of the witnesses on his admission statement, show that he had admitted his guilt. The amount of Rs,1,200 as cash security and cost of service in above mentioned appeal was received by him on 23-4-1993 and he kept the amount with him for his personal use ad had not deposited with the cashier till 26-8-1992 the date on which he returned the amount to the appellants alongwith Rs,500 extra a journey expenses in presence of the witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses in connection with second charge before the Enquiry Officer also proved the guilt of the appellant. Further it has been confirmed by the cassette in which the talk between the complainant Ali Zaman and the appellant Mr. Akbar Khan about Rs,4,000 as illegal gratification in connection with Appeal No,202 of 1992, for a Member of the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellant was also given personal hearing by the authority (Chairman, FST) on 26-6-1993 and the Enquiry Officer had also served upon him a notice dated 13-7-1993 to appear before the Enquiry Officer for cross-examining the witnesses, but he intentionally did not appear before the Enquiry Officer though he was present in the office on 13-7-1993 and 15-7-1993 as it is evident from the Attendance Register on which he had signed his presence. In our mind when the appellant had himself admitted before the Enquiry Officer and recorded his admission statement before the Deputy Registrar in presence of the other witnesses and staff of the Federal Service Tribunal, about taking Rs,1,200 from the appellants as cash secuirty and cost of service and Rs,4,000 as illegal gratification, then there was no need of further inquiry or show-cause notice etc. As charges of misconduct and corruption against the appellant, were founded on the admitted facts, there was no need of holding any formal inquiry within the views of Supreme Court in PLD 1985 SC 134, 1987 SCM R 829, 1990 SCM R 447, 1993 SCM R 603, 1993 SCM R 956 and 1991 SCM R 140. In the instant case the appellant was given full 'opportunity to reply show-cause notice and was granted a personal hearing and was also given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but the appellant did not avail the opportunities and remained absent from the inquiry. The appellant at no stage seems to have claimed that he would produce witnesses in his defence. Civil servant could not have a choice nor can he insist that a particular procedure for holding disciplinary proceedings should be followed. The appellant in his appeal in para.8, has admitted that he had received the copies of written statements of witnesses alongwith notice dated 13-7-1993 wherein it was clearly mentioned that he should make himself available w.e.f, 13-7-1993 to cross-examine the witnesses. According to 'him the said notice was received by him on 15-7-1993. Even after receipt of the said notice he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, his contention for not giving him opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not correct."
7. Leave grant order dated 27-3-1995 is to the following effect: ' "This petition for leave to appeal arises from the facts that Akbar Khan petitioner was working as Assistant Incharge in the Office of the Federal Service Tribunal. On the charge of accepting illegal gratification an enquiry was held against him. He was charge-sheeted. He was given final show- cause notice and personal hearing by the concerned Officer. At the stage of personal hearing by the Authority (Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal), the case was remanded for fresh enquiry. After the remand, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the Authorized Officer who forwarded it to the Authority. The petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service on 20-7-1993. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal he moved application for permission to amend the Memorandum of Appeal in order to take additional grounds therein. The Service Tribunal, however, without deciding his application for amendment in the Memorandum of Appeal, has dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 22-4-1994. Hence this petition.
(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that after the remand no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the Authorised Officer or by the Authority and he has been dismissed from service simply on the report of the Enquiry Officer.
Learned counsel has further contended that although the petitioner had moved an application for amendment of the memorandum of appeal in order to add more grounds therein but the learned Tribunal has just ignored the application and has decided the appeal without disposing of the aforesaid application.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, leave to appeal is granted to consider:-- '(i) Whether after remand the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing by the Authority as well?
(ii) Whether by not giving him the opportunity of personal hearing the reasonable opportunity to defend himself has not been denied to the petitioner? And
(iii) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deciding the appeal without first disposing of the application for the amendment of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner?'"
8. Hence this appeal.
9. Mr. Sheikh Riazul Haque, the learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this appeal, has reiterated the pleas regarding (1) lack of mala fides on the part of the appellant in receiving the amount of Rs,1,200 as security and cost of service, (2) return in good faith of the said amount along Rs,500 extra, (3) mala fides on the part of the Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal to involve the appellant in relation to the other charge about receipt of Rs,4,000, due to professional jealousy and that (4) the appellant was not associated with the enquiry in the matter (a) either in the first round or (b) even after remand of the case to the Enquiry Officer by the Chairman of the Tribunal. However, when the attention of the learned counsel was drawn to the material indicating that the appellant had specifically admitted the factum of receipt of the amount of Rs,1,200 and also subscribed his signatures to such admission alongwith those of the witnesses, he was content with submitting that the amount of Rs,1,200 having been returned to Messrs Mukhtar Ahmed and Fazal Malik alongwith the additional amount of Rs,500 which they had to spend on travel from Peshawar to Islamabad, the treatment meted out to his client is out of proportion to the admitted position and that too without associating him in the enquiry proceedings in any manner whatsoever. Contrarily, Mr. Maulvi Anwarul Haq, the learned Deputy Attorney-General, has 'supported the judgment in appeal in its entirety.
10. We have considered the arguments addressed at the bar and are not inclined to the view that anybody, other than the appellant himself, is to blame for the predicament in which he finds himself today. A reference to para. 11 of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, alredy reproduced in para. 4 above, clearly shows that he did not avail of the opportnities provided him by the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witnesses and that he voluntarily admitted his guilt. His admission before the Deputy Registrar in the presence of witnesses and the evidence in connection with second charge before the Enquiry Officer were rightly taken as going a long way in proving his guilt, Similar is the position about the cassette containing the talk between complainant Ali Zaman and appellant Akbar Khan about receipt of Rs,4,000 by the latter from the former as illegal gratification in connection with appeal No,202(R) of 1992. Mr. Sheikh Riazul Haque did not even so much as contend that the judgment in appeal falls short of any measure whatsoever, including in relation to the observations by the Tribunal that in the presence of the admission of his guilt by the appellant, there was no need for holding any formal enquiry against him in view of this Court's judgments reported in PLD 1985 SC 134, 1987 SCM R 829, 1990 SCM R 447, 1993 SCM R 603, 1993 SCM R 956 and 1991 SCM R 140.
11. No other point was urged.
12. In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.