| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4647 = 2026 SLD 4647 = 2026 PLJ 117 |
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 147(P)CS of 2021
Presented By: Chaudhry Abdul Qayyum, Ms. Sarwat Tahira Habib, Muhammad Shakeel Malik, Members
Mr. GR Bhatti, Counsel for Appellant. Mr. Nadeem Hussain Mughal, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents with Mr. Saddam, on behalf of
Respondent No. 3, Mr. Sohail Ejaz Waraich, Accounts officer, on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Azam Rafique, AAO, AGPR on behalf of
Respondent No. 2, as DRs. Date of hearing: 23.2.2026.
Appeal No. 147(P)CS of 2021
Presented By: Chaudhry Abdul Qayyum, Ms. Sarwat Tahira Habib, Muhammad Shakeel Malik, Members
Mr. GR Bhatti, Counsel for Appellant. Mr. Nadeem Hussain Mughal, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents with Mr. Saddam, on behalf of
Respondent No. 3, Mr. Sohail Ejaz Waraich, Accounts officer, on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Azam Rafique, AAO, AGPR on behalf of
Respondent No. 2, as DRs. Date of hearing: 23.2.2026.
WAJID HUSSAIN, EX-SENIOR AUDITOR AGPR, PESHAWAR--Appellant
VERSUS
CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS, OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER GENERAL, CGA COMPLEX, ISLAMABAD and 2 others--Respondents
Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Section: 4
Law: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
Section: 5, 6(6), 6A
Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (LXX of 1973)-- ----S. 4--Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 5, 6(6) & 6A--Service appeal--Dismissal from service--Imposition of major penalty--De-novo inquiry--Double jeopardy--Issuance of show-cause notice--Charge-sheet--Violation of due process--Initial inquiry recommended minor penalty--Fact finding inquiry--No evidence recorded--Departmental appeal dismissed--Rule 5 of E&D Rules 1973 explained enquiry procedure as (ii) The authorized officer should decide an inquiry should be conducted through an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee (iv) on receipt of report of Inquiry Officer authorized officer shall determine whether charge has been proved--If it is proposed to impose a major penalty, he should forward case to authority along with the findings of Inquiry officer and his own recommendations regarding penalty to be imposed (for emphasis)--Authority should pass such orders as it may deem proper--Inquiry Officer could neither decide whether charges have been proven or not nor recommend kind of penalty to be imposed--Rule 6(6) made it clear the Inquiry Officer should submit his or its findings and ground thereof to authorized officer-- AO had to proceed for final order as per Rule 5 of rules quoted above but authority shelved everything done after a lengthy process that had taken a long time and decided to start again from a new fact finding inquiry--This recommendations of denovo fact finding enquiry committee” resulted in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against staff including appellant afresh, without closing earlier proceedings, hence a double jeopardy--Modify penalty of “dismissal from service” into a major penalty of “reduction to a lower stage in time scale for a period of three years” in terms of rule 4(1)(b)(i) of E&D Rules 1973--He is ordered to be reinstated in service from date of dismissal from service with back/consequential benefits--Appeal partially allowed. …