KARACHI, June 2: The Federal Service Tribunal has reinstated a BPS-18 officer of the district management group, dismissed from service for wilful absence, with retrospective effect, from the date of his suspension, Feb 10, 1998.
Dr Fazlullah Pechuho, husband of Asif Ali Zardari’s sister, said in his appeal before the tribunal that he was a regular DMG member on deputation from the federal government to the provincial government. He was serving as deputy commissioner of Thatta when, following the Benazir government’s dismissal in 1996, he was made an officer on special duty (OSD) in the Sindh finance department as part of victimization of the ousted premier’s near relatives. A case was registered against him by the Anti- Corruption Establishment in 1997 wherein he was also accused of dacoity, he was not allowed to proceed on leave and was subsequently dismissed from service in November 1999.
After narrating the facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal and the arguments advanced by the two sides, an FST bench comprising Akbar M. Memon and Barkat Ali Baloch observed that Dr Pehucho was not given ‘the benefit of proper defence through an appropriate inquiry as envisaged by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules’. There were sufficient reasons to prevent him from facing the inquiry in person and appearing in public as a criminal case involving allegations of a non-bailable offence like dacoity had been registered against him. The borrowing (provincial) government and the lending (federal) government had acted in a manner prejudicial to him to the extent that he was denied medical or earned leave. The authorities employed all possible means to serve him show-cause notices but did little to inform him of the rejection of his leave applications for being violative of the rules. Allowing the appeal, the FST bench, however, left it to the authorities to hold a fresh inquiry against Dr Pehucho strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations within three months.
The question of back benefits as well as treatment of the period of absence would depend on the result of the new inquiry. “If no inquiry is held within three months, the appellant will be entitled to all consequential benefits and the period of his absence will be treated as leave of the kind available to him”, the FST bench said.
