IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Present:

Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan

Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon

C.P No.D-4806 of 2017

Wasim Ahmed Khan …………….… Petitioner

Versus

Federation of Pakistan and 03 others ………… Respondents

-----------------

Date of hearing: 16.04.2018

Mr. Saeed Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

----------------

o r d e r

ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON-J. Through the instant petition, the Petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

In the view of these submissions, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court in the best interest of justice, law and equity, may kindly set-aside unlawful decision of the Defendant No.3 (Authorized Officer i.e. Director HR CAA) and to pass him an Order for refund of deducted excessive amount of Rs.271,166/- to the Petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case as per averment of the parties are that Petitioner was a retired employee of Civil Aviation Authority (Respondent-Authority). Petitioner submitted that during his tenure of service with the Respondent-Authority, he was served with a show cause notice dated 24.04.2013 on the allegations that he submitted medical bills amounting to Rs. 28,834/- for reimbursement of the medicines charges over and above the medical allowance for his chronic illness. Petitioner has averred that he replied to the aforesaid show cuase notice on 02.05.2013 and denied the allegations, however, the Respondent-Authority was not satisfied with the reply of show cause notice, and finally deducted an amount of Rs. three lac from his retirement benefits without hearing him and providing any justification for the same. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the deduction of the amount of Rs. 03 lac from his retirement benefits, filed departmental appeal for refund of the excess / unjustified amount of Rs. 2,71,166/-. Petitioner has asserted that after award of excess penalty by the Respondent-Authority, another claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of Rs.41,354/- was accepted vide letter dated 20^th May, 2014. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision of the respondent-authority has approached this Court on 21.07.2017 for grant of aforementioned relief.

3. At the very outset, we asked from the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding maintainability of instant petition on the ground of laches. In reply to the query raised by this Court Mr. Saeed Ahmed Qureshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of amount of Rs.28,834/- was genuine and was wrongly discarded without assigning any reason; that the Respondent-Authority has failed to dispose of the matter in a judicious manner; that the Respondent-Authority unlawfully deducted an amount of Rupees Three Lac instead of Rs. 28,834/- without documentary evidence and thus misused their power and authority; that the Respondent-Authority cannot deduct an amount from the pensionable service of the Petitioner; that the Respondent-Authority failed to appreciate the claim of the Petitioner that no enquiry was conducted into the allegations; that Petitioner retired from the service of Respondent-Authority on 28.06.2013 and before eight days of his retirement, the impugned action was taken, which is against the law; that huge amount has been deduced from the pensionery benefits of the Petitioner without deciding the appeal of the Petitioner; on the point of laches he explained that since the petitioner has been in touch with the Respondents-Authority by way of correspondence, therefore, the laches will not come in the way of the petitioner. He lastly prayed for allowing the instant petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. We have noted that the Investigation Team found that the Petitioner was involved in submitting erroneous medical bills amounting to Rs. 28,834/- for reimbursement of medicine charges over and above the medical allowance for his illness and collected information from the Medical Stores from where the Petitioner had purchased the medicine i.e. M/s. Nadeem Medical Centre, Korangi Town, Karachi. The Investigation Team submitted its report that the aforesaid medical store does not exist at the address mentioned on the aforesaid medical bills. The Respondent-Authority heard the Petitioner on the claim of reimbursement of medicines for which they found him guilty of misconduct under Para-5.02(e)(i)(ii) (iii) (v) (ix)(x)&(xi) of Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulation 2000. As per documentary evidence available on record, the Respondent-Authority decided not to hold an enquiry into the allegations as the petitioner has admitted that he submitted erroneous medical bills amounting to Rs. 28,834/- for reimbursement of medicine, which were later on found to be bogus.

6. We have perused the reply and the impugned order dated 18.06.2013 awarding minor penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss caused by the Petitioner under Regulation 5.04(a)(iii) of Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations 2000. The only defence which has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent-Authority has shown bias attitude/ treatment meted out to the petitioner by Chief HR in connivance with GM Medical Management which in our view in absence of any cogent material is hardly a ground which Petitioner could take advantage of his claim for reimbursement for Rs.28, 834/- which however on investigation was found out to be bogus.

7. We have also noted that Prima-facie sufficient documentary evidence was collected by the Respondent-authority to show the malafide of the petitioner and the Respondents in our view have taken the action against the Petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, we do not see any violation of law, rules and regulations in the proceedings conducted by the Respondent-Authority against the Petitioner by awarding minor penalty on the petitioner. Record further reflects that there is no motive, malice or ill-will on the part of Respondent-Authority to put false allegation upon the Petitioner on the aforesaid charges, which is based on sound documentary evidence. Besides above, we also do not concur with this assertion of the learned counsel for the Petitioner about the reasons given for the laches involved in the instant petition and are of the considered view that the instant Petition is hit by the laches since the instant Petition was filed as late as on 21.07.2017, whereas the alleged cause of action accrued to him on 18.6.2013, i.e. approximately five years prior to the filing of the instant Petition of which no plausible explanation is available with the learned counsel. Consequently, the instant Petition is dismissed in limine along with listed application. Though, we have dismissed the petition in limine, however before parting with the order in the interest of justice, we would direct the Respondent No.03, to whom a copy of the present order may be sent, to make sure that only the amount to the extent of penalty imposed be recovered from the petitioner as per the relevant rules & regulations and not otherwise.

8. Foregoing are the reasons for our short order dated 16.4.2018, whereby we have dismissed the instant petition in limine.

JUDGE