1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court assails the validity of the order dated 4th of August, 2000 whereby the Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant challenging his removal from service in terms of Notification dated 3rd of February, 1998.
2. ' Relevant facts giving rise to the institution of the instant appeal are that appellant Asghar Malik joined the Police Department as Assistant Superintendent of Police in 1967 through competitive examination with higher academic qualification. By dint of his hardwork and devotion to his professional duties and with an unblemished career, the appellant rose to the highest rank of Inspector-General of Police. From time to time, the appellant also held the offices of Inspector- General Pak Railway Police, Additional Secretary lncharge Federal Investigation Division Islamabad.
3. Director-General, FIA, Islamabad, Inspector-General of Police, Capital Territory, Islamabad, Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and Director-General, Bureau of Police Research and Development, Islamabad. The appellant remained in charge as Director-General F.I.A. From May, 1994 till November 1996 and on 10th of April, 1997 while performing his duty in his capacity as the Inspector-General of Police, Pakistan Railway Police was placed under suspension. On 22nd of June, 1997 he was served with a charge-sheet having been issued by Mr. Hasan Raza Pasha being the Authorized Officer indicating the appointment of Mr. A.W. Razi, OSD, Establishment Division as the Inquiry Officer who allegedly conducted the proceedings in a slipshod manner in violation of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Consequently, on 3rd of February 1998, the appellant was removed from service as Inspector-General of Police BPS-21.
4. ' Way back on 30th of June, 1993 as well, the appellant was suspended and issued a Show-Cause Notice for dismissal from service and thus he invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, whereupon, interim relief was granted in his favour on 13-7-1993 and on 31-7-1993 the writ petition of the appellant was disposed of as fructified in the light of the withdrawal of the suspension order as well as Show-Cause Notice for dismissal ibid. ' In 1994 while the appellant was holding the office of Director-General, F.I.A. Mian Muhammad Sharif father of Mr. M. Nawaz Sharif was arrested by F.I.A. On various criminal charges, and the moment Mr. M. Nawaz Sharif took over as Prime Minister of Pakistan for the second time, the appellant was removed from service pursuant to so-challed departmental proceedings on unfounded charges.
5. ' Being aggrieved of the order of his removal from service in terms of Notification dated 3-2-1998 the appellant filed an appeal and the Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the same vide the order impugned herein.
6. ' On 17th of January, 2001 Mr. Zaka Ullah Jan, Section Officer, Establishment Division had produced the original record pertaining to departmental proceedings against the appellant before this Court and submitted that proceedings were initiated from 11-8-1997. Statements of the witnesses were recorded on 1-9-1997 and 4-9-1997. This Court had observed that there was no order-sheet prepared by the Inquiry Officer from which it could be ascertained that on those dates the appellant was present. Besides, the statements of witnesses so recorded revealed that neither the appellant was present nor any opportunity was provided to him to cross-examine the witnesses and that statements of the witnesses did not bear the signatures of the appellant.
7. ' On 30-11-2000 this Court had also observed that the appellant had taken specific objections as to the validity of the proceedings in para. 7 of the grounds of appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal that he was never granted any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, nor the statements of the witnesses were recorded in his presence by the Investigating Officer, but no finding whatsoever had been recorded by the Service Tribunal on this issue. Thus leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in the circumstances the inquiry proceedings and the order of removal from service of the appellant were legal and maintainable.
8. ' With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Attorney- General, we have gone through the judgment impugned rendered by Federal Service Tribunal upholding the removal of the appellant from service. In nutshell, grievance of the appellant as convassed us was that Inquiry Proceedings as a whole were conducted in a mala fide and illegal manner, evidence of tl-e witnesses was not recorded during the inquiry proceedings in the present of the appellant. It was further averred by Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court that the so- called statements of the witnesses had been recorded and signed on 2-3-1997 and 3-3-1997 whereas the record shows that on both the above dates no departmental proceedings were held, hence, the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses sought to be produced against him. Attention of this Court was drawn to the decision of the N.A.B. Dated 3rd of August, 2000 whereby the appellant has been cleared of all the charges emanating from the departmental charge-sheet. Highlighting the factum of malice and vindictiveness. The learned counsel argued that the appellant was being victimized by the competent authority (Mr. M. Nawaz Sharit) for two-fold reasons, firstly, the appellant being the Inspector-General of Police Punjab had resisted the Federal move against the Punjab Government in June, 1993, and secondly, Mian Muhammad Sharif was arrested by F.I.A. In November, 1994 while the appellant was holding the office as DG/F.I.A. It was further contended that the learned Federal Service Tribunal did not at all apply its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances emerging in the instant case and arbitrarily brushed aside the plea of the appellant causing grave miscarriage of justice and irreparable loss.
9. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through paragraph 21 of the judgment impugned wherein it was observed that the appellant had nowhere asserted that he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In this context, learned counsel argues that the appellant made a categorical objection before the Inquiry Officer namely Mr. A.W. Kazi in course of departmental proceedings and therefore the same objection was reiterated in black and white by the appellant while furnishing reply to the Show-Cause Notice and the same objection was raised in front of Mr. Hasan Raza Pasha the Authoritized Officer during the personal hearing. The learned counsel asserted that it is clearly manifest from the contents of the appeal of the appellant before the President of Pakistan as well as the appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal mentioning the factum of mala fide proceedings but no finding whatsoever was recorded on this vital issue by the Federal Service Tribunal.
10. ' Adverting to the charges levelled against the appellant learned counsel contended that it was conceded before the Federal Service Tribunal that Charge No,1 was not proved against the appellant. As regards Charge No,2 regarding the misuse of official vehicles the learned counsel submits that the Inquiry Officer had himself concluded that no financial loss to the Government Exchequer had been caused by the appellant. So far as Charge No,3 is concerned, learned counsel submits that the appellant had fully disclosed his lawful financial resources and savings etc. Pursuant to his posting abroad and disposal of various properties well in time and the Government had accorded him the requisite permission accordingly. Thus, the findings arrived at on this charge by the learned Federal Service Tribunal on the basis of one-sided report of the PIMC whose author was quoted but not produced as a witness were not justified particularly so, when contradictory reports were procured as to the cost of construction of the house of the appellant at Muhafiz Town, Lahore. It was submitted that the learned Federal Service Tribunal appears to have lost sight of an admitted fact that the Departmental Inquiry Officer had dropped Charge No,4 of living beyond ostensible means etc. Having not been substantiated against the appellant. Hence, the learned Federal Service Tribunal wrongly proceeded to press the same against the appellant.
11. ' The learned Deputy Attorney-General was unable to controvert the above factual position and could only advance the arguments that the charges against the appellant were of serious nature.
12. Considering the case from all angles, we are of the view that overwhelming material exists on record to show that proceedings against the appellant were conducted in violation of the principles and procedure laid down to regulate the Inquiry Proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, inasmuch as evidence of the witnesses sought to be produced against the appellant was not recorded by the Inquiry Officer in presence of the appellant whereby he was deprived of his lawful right to cross-examine the witnesses. It remains equally clear that charges of corruption and malpractices were not proved and above all the NAB had finally decided to close its case against the appellant exonerating him of all the charges including those in the charge-sheet.
13. In this view of the matter, the findings of the learned Federal Service Tribunal are not warranted by law and cannot be allowed to hold the field. Consequently, this appeal is allowed with the result that the impugned Notifkation of Establishment Division dated 3-2-1998 and the judgment dated 4-8-2000 of the Federal Service Tribunal impugned herein are set aside. The case is remanded for fresh inquiry, if still deemed necessary by an independent and impartial officer in accordance with law. On 26-4-2001 short order was passed and these are the reasons thereof.