' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 23rd February, 2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby appeal filed by petitioner against Notification, dated 11th July, 1998 imposing upon him penalty of compulsory retirement from service has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that vide charge-sheet, dated 14th May, 1997 petitioner Rahat Naseem Malik was directed to be proceeded against on the charges of having the persistent reputation of being corrupt and assuming the style of living which is apparently beyond his known means of income with another added allegation that his pecuniary assets declared by him in the Annual Declaration of Assets are disproprotionate to his known means of income. No statement of allegations was appended thereto: As such on 19th May 1997 petitioner was served with another charge-sheet accompanied with statement of allegation having same allegations, which were imputed against him in the earlier charge-sheet. In the meanwhile on 27th August, 1997 third charge-sheet was also served upon the petitioner alleging therein that he is unauthorized shareholder in two business concerns named and styled as Bilal Rice Mills, Jilalpur Road, Hafizabad and Bilal and Co. GhalIa Mandi, Hafizabad. To substantiate the accusations it was explained therein that one Mr. Irshad son of Fazal Karim, resident of Bijli Mohallah, Hafizabad is his front man and he had received Rs,2,30,000 during first week of June, 1997 from Bilal Rice Mills, Hafizabad. The amount was collected by Maqbool Ahmad Gondal, ACIT, Hafizabad from the partners of Bilal Rice Mills and sent to Mr. Tariq Ehsan, ACIT, who is stated to be the trusted person of the petitioner for onward transmission to him. It was also alleged that petitioner purchased House No,189, Stree-18, F-102, Islamabad having an area of 2 Kanals without prior approval of the Department. The price of this residential house was estimated to be Rs,2,00,00,000. (Rupees Two crores) which does not commensurate with the known resources of the petitioner.
3. The charges contained in all the charge-sheets were repudiated by the petitioner being unfounded, irrelevant and based on prejudice as well as extraneous consideration.
3-A The Inquiry Officer duly appointed by the Authorized Officer vide his report, dated 31st December, 1997 concluded that in view of cumulative effect of facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is/was found to be indeed corrupt and has been living upto the reputation of being corrupt. Similarly he held that the officer's style of living is beyond his ostensible means. Likewise it was observed by him that the charge of declaring Assets in Annual Declaration of Assets being disproprortionate to his legitimate income is established.
3-B So far as allegation of being unauthorized shareholder in two business concerns i,e, BHA Rice Mills Hafizabad etc. Is concerned no positive opinion was expressed by the Inquiry Officer except drawing conclusion that Muhammad Irshad front man of the petitioner is partner/member in both the business concerns and to the extent of his being front man the allegation is supported by the evidence but the collection of Rs,2,30,000 by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Gondal and transmitting the same to the accused officer by Tariq Ehsan has not been established as the said officer would obviously not accept it. It is important to note that to establish connection of the petitioner in the business by the name and style of Bilal Rice Mills and Bilal & Co. Respectively it was proved on record that during his posting at Multan petitioner acted as arbitrator in respect of various claimants of inheritance of one deceased Malik Abdul Ahad of Wazirabad and a sum of Rs,90,000 was decided by him as fee of Arbitrator from Bilal & Co. According to the opinion of the Inquiry Officer the plea of becoming arbitrator in respect of inheritance of Malik Abdul Ahad has been raised as mere cover up.
3-C. Relating to construction of a house by the petitioner in Street No,18 F.10/2 Islamabad on an area of 2 Kanals it was observed that petitioner contends that its area is 670 sq.Yards whereas factual position is that the total area of the plot on which petitioner has constructed the house is 668 sq. Yards with a constructed area of 4515 sq. Ft. And market value of similar type of construction in that area was above Rs,50,00,000. It was also opined by the Inquiry Officer that the said property belongs to the officer although he purchased it in the name of his wife who is merely a named lender. It may be noted that petitioner's stand in this behalf was that total cost of the house owned by his wife is Rs,30 lacs but the department had exorbitantly increased its price to Rs,2 crores whereas the Inquiry Officer held that the difference between the declared cost of the bungalow and the actual purchase price was made up by the officer out of unexplained sources.
4. The petitioner was confronted with the report of Inquiry Officer as show-cause notice, on 24th February, 1998 was issued to him mentioning therein that on the basis of the facts the charges levelled in the charge-sheets read with statement of allegations have been established, therefore, petitioner should show-cause within 10 days of the receipt of notice as to why major penalty of dismissal from service as provided under rule 4 (1)(b)(iv) of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "E & D Rules") should not be imposed upon him.- In response to this show cause notice petitioner again submitted a detailed reply in the month of March, 1998 wherein once again the allegations were repudiated. Ultimately after observing codal formalities vide notification dated 11th July, 1998 the competent Authority in exercise of powers conferred on him under rule 5(1)(iv) read with rules 3 and 4 of E & D Rules imposed penalty of 'compulsory retirement from service' upon petitioner Rahat Naseem Malik under rule 4(1)(b)(ii) of the said Rules with immediate effect.
5. The petitioner preferred appeal before the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As the appellate authority did not dispose of the appeal of petitioner within 90 days, therefore, he instituted an appeal before Federal Service Tribunal, which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such present petition has been filed for leave to appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued:--
(a) That to establish the charges contained in the charge-sheets the department had failed to produce cogent, trustworthy and convincing evidence but the Inquiry Officer placing reliance on the conjectural inferences had given verdict against the petitioner. According to him primarily it was the duty of the department to establish charge against petitioner by producing admissible evidence oral or documentary. Simultaneously allowing opportunity to the petitioner for cross- examining the witnesses with a view to impeach their credibility and in absence of such kind of evidence merely on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioner in the reply of charge-sheets the Inquiry Officer had no lawful authority to hold that petitioner is guilty of charges.
(b) That the allegations were fully explained by the petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheets to be incorrect and substantiated his stand with documentary evidence but the Inquiry Officer in a haphazard manner disbelieved the view-point of the petitioner and made adverse recommendations against him without any legal justification.
(c) That the Federal Service Tribunal under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 exercises jurisdiction of a Civil Court, therefore, it was its duty to have thoroughly examined the case of the petitioner in the light of known principle of administration of justice to reach at a conclusion "whether the allegations contained in the charge-sheets have been duly proved against the petitioner but the Federal Service Tribunal endorsed the findings of the Inquiry Officer illegally.
(d) That the petitioner had about 30 years unblemished service at his credit commenced in the year 1969 during which the Income Tax Department had awarded him prizes as a token of his good performance and throughout said period he was never subjected to any departmental proceedings.
(e) That the petitioner has been victimized at the behest of the members of Ruling Government as they were against him on account of previous vengeance which they have developed against him.
7. Learned Deputy Attorney-General contended on behalf respondents:--
(a) That the charges contained in charge-sheets dated 14-5-1997, 19-5-1997 and 27-8-1997 have been fully established by producing convicting and admissible evidence placed by, the department before the Inquiry Officer, copies of which had also been supplied to the petitioner.
(b) That some of the allegations like being corrupt and style of living apparently beyond his known means and purchasing House 'No,189 Street No,18, F-10/2, Islamabad were established on producing evidence as well as in view of the admissions made by the petitioner himself in reply to the charge-sheets/show-cause notice etc.
(c) That the petitioner was liable to be dismissed from service but the competent Authority ordered his compulsory retirement by taking a lenient view in his favour, therefore, no further indulgence be shown to him and his petition be dismissed as no substantial question of law is involved in the case.
8. We have heard both .The learned counsel at length and perused available material on record.
The Inquiry Officer mainly relied upon the documentary evidence produced before him by the representative of the department including the statement filed by the petitioner declaring his assets under rule 12 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as well as his Returns of Wealth Tax. The evidentiary value of both these documents cannot legitimately he denied by the petitioner because they bear his signatures. The comparison of both these documents leads to draw an inference that petitioner had sufficient financial resources at his disposal of the basis of which he and his wife had been acquiring movable as well as immovable assets. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner had no other legitimate source of income except his salary which he had been drawing from 1969 till the date of his compulsory retirement as according to version of learned Deputy Attorney-General total salary drawn by him could not be more than Rs,2.5 million in any case and against such limited source of income petitioner had been procuring valuable assets besides supporting his family members including incurring expenditure on the education etc. Of children as well as pleasure trip to United States of America, United Kingdom and Canada with family. It may be noted that petitioner obtained ex-Pakistan leave on the pretext of his going abroad for medical check-up whereas fact remains that no check-up of the petitioner had taken place over there. Therefore, from this aspect alone the conduct of the petitioner can be visualized during service because the deeds of a person are considered sufficient to ascertain his reputation.
The Inquiry Officer from the documentary evidence on record i,e, statement of Declaration of Assets and Return of Wealth Tax gathered that to provide cover to the investments which the petitioner had been making in acquiring movable and immovable properties etc. He has shown his income from the prize bond winnings, savings from salaries without mentioning the details and exadt figures of cash C in hand including the amount from the prize bond winnings as well as savings from salaries in the Returns of Wealth Tax and generating funds by obtaining loans, from lotteries, from gifts, from amanat, from advances against inheritance shares of property etc., therefore, these discrepancies are sufficient to opine against the petitioner with reference to charges of corruption etc.
9. The Inquiry Officer perform quasi-judicial functions, therefore, he is not supposed to pronounce a judicial verdict, as a Judge of a Court of law is required to do so under recognized procedure laid down for conducting legal proceedings. It is also to be noted that a Court established under a statute is bound by the procedure prescribed for its functions and whatsoever decision is given, it has a binding, effect whereas opinion rendered by an Inquiry Officer is not a final verdict to decide the fate of the parties arrayed before it for determination of a particular/specific question.
Therefore, if an Inquiry Officer on the basis of material placed before it assess/estimate that the point which is required to be determined has been established and if his such verdict/opinion is acceptable to a prudent man it could be deemed under Article 2(d) of Qanun-e-Shahhadat Order, 1984 that fact has been proved accordingly. It may be noted that we have to draw a distinction between the procedure which is to be followed by a Court of criminal jurisdiction while determining the guilt or innocence of an accused and establishing a fact before an Inquiry Officer because before a criminal Court accusation has to be established by producing convincing and trustworthy evidence whereas before an Inquiry Officer who exercises quasi jurisdiction it is not necessary to furnish the evidence of the same standard because acceptance or otherwise of the opinion of an Inquiry Officer by the competent Authority depends upon the nature of the charge and the material produced before it and the circumstances leading to draw inference may be on basis of strong probabilities that the officer charged for misconduct or corruption has been found guilty. In this behalf reference can be made to the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh s/o Conpatrao Naik Nimbalkar and others (AIR 1997 SC 2286). Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer against petitioner are not based on conjectural inferences.
10. As far as contention of learned counsel namely that the Inquiry Officer disbelieved the explanation of the petitioner is concerned in this behalf it is to be noted that the Inquiry Officer had considered the view-point of the petitioner in the light of the material available on record and did not agree with it for strong reasons mentioned therein. For instance the plea of the petitioner that his wife has generated funds for construction of the house from her own income being in the business of fashion and designing has been rejected because no material in this behalf was produced before him. To the contrary petitioner had taken different stand to justify resources of his income on basis of which he acquired movable and immovable assets because for instance at one place he has shown sources of finance as loan from his wife and on the other place his wife has been shown to have taken loan from one lady Mrs. Nighat who admittedly had not shown the amount of loan extended to the wife of the petitioner in her own assets. Similarly to provide a cover up to his resources at one occasion petitioner declared that he had obtained a gift from his share against the property left by his father or spending the amount of amanat kept with him by his uncle but without producing convincing material etc. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Inquiry Officer on having taken into consideration the cumulative effect of the total material/eVidence available on record formed opinion that the charges levelled against petitioner in the charge-sheets stand fully established.
11. Now turning towards the next contention of the learned counsel namely that Federal Service Tribunal under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 exercises jurisdiction of a Civil court, therefore, it was its duty to have thoroughly examined the case of the petitioner. As far as the powers of the Tribunal to confirm, set aside, vary or modify an order operating against petitioner as well as to exercise powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is concerned there is no cavil with it. However, such power would be exercised by the Tribunal judiciously keeping in view the recognized principle of law. Undoubtedly Tribunal can set aside the judgment impugned before it, if it has been shown that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer against the delinquent officer is perverse and is not supported by any legal evidence at all or the findings are not sustainable because in view of the material available on record no reasonable man could reach at the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer as it has been held in the cases of Nand Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others (AIR 1978 SC 1277) and Union of India v. H.C. Goel (AIR 1964 SC 364). It may be noted that in the instant case learned Federal Service Tribunal on having taken into consideration material available on record judiciously disbelieved the plea of the petitioner and maintained the notification, dated 11th July, 1998 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement upon him. Therefore, in our opinion on this score as well no case is made out for interference. To the contrary we are inclined to observe that in number of cases like the one in hand the competent Authority instead of awarding adequate punishment to a delinquent officer who has been found guilty of having the persistent reputation of being corrupt and assuming the style of living which is apparently beyond his known means of income and also procuring movable and immovable assets which are apparently disproportionate to his known sources of income has only been awarded mild punishment of compulsory retirement meaning thereby that he has been allowed to enjoy the pensionery benefits accrued to him till the time when he was in service besides perpetuating his action in pursuance whereof he had cumulated huge assets in his name as well as in the name of his wife because no criminal action has been proposed against him for retrieving illegal gains as well as for awarding substantial punishment of imprisonment on account of indulging into corruption and corrupt practices on the basis of which he has been removed from service.
12. So far grounds urged by learned counsel noted as (d) and (e) hereinabove needs no detailed discussions for want of material on record.
13. It may be noted that corruption has become a menace for the society notwithstanding the fact whether it is committed by the Government Officers/officials or anyone else and no drastic actions have ever been suggested against them to retrieve the assets except recently when by promulgating National Accountability Ordinance, against some of them action has been initiated before the criminal. Courts of justice. Therefore, in order to curb such menance of the society it is high time to suggest stringent measures which are required to be taken by the competent Authority while disposing of the disciplinary matters against delinquent officer(s) it has been decided to accept the opinion of the Inquiry Officer who has recommended adverse action against him/them under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 he should also simultaneously recommend for registration of a criminal case against such officer and to achieve the object if need be the Efficiency and Discipline Rules should be amended suitably by invoking the golden principle of Islamic justice of rewards and punishment in the Government Department.
14. However, in the instant case learned counsel stated that petitioner had himself made appeals to various authorities for initiating action against him of a criminal nature as he wanted to establish that he is innocent and has not indulged into corruption but despite his such appeals no action his so far been taken against him. Therefore, in view of his desire we would suggest that let the competent Authority, initiate proceedings of criminal nature as well against the petitioner.
15. Thus for the foregoing reasons we see no merit in the instant petition, as such the same is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.
' A copy of this judgment be sent to Secretary, Establishment Division for examining possibility to amend Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 in view of the observations made hereinabove.
' The above are the reasons of our short order dated 13-3-2002 whereby petition was dismissed and leave declined.