ISLAMABAD: Beenish Iftikhar, a Pakistan Customs Service officer of BS-17, has been removed from the government services for unauthorised absence from duty.
As per details, disciplinary proceedings under Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, were initiated against the above-said officer, last posted as Assistant Director, Directorate of Customs Valuation, Lahore, vide show-cause notice No. 2(3)/2007-M-II(Cus-II) dated 03.10.2017 on account of her unauthorized absence from duty with effect from December 25, 2016 constituting “misconduct” in terms of Rule 3(b) ibid.
The accused officer was granted 730 days leave (ex-Pakistan) as detailed below:
i). 262 days leave of half pay (LHP) (ex-Pakistan) from 16.1.2014 to 04.10.2014.
ii). 103 days EOL (without pay) (ex-Pakistan) from 05.10.2014 to 15.01.2015.
iii). 180 days EOL (without pay) (ex-Pakistan) from 26.12.2015 to 22.06.2016.
iv). 185 days EOL (without pay) (ex-Pakistan) from 23.06.2016 to 24.12.2016.
The accused officer was due to resume duty on December 25, 2016 on expiry of her leave; however, she applied for further extension in leave for 262 days i.e. up to September 11, 2017 which was regretted and she was directed vide Board’s letter dated June 30, 2017 to join duty by July 10, 2017 failing which disciplinary action will be initiated against her. The accused officer, however, failed to resume duty even on expiry of the extension applied for and is unauthorized absent since December 25, 2016.
The charge of unauthorized/wilful absence of the accused is duly established from record beyond any doubt, therefore, the authorized officer/Member (Admn), dispensed with the option of holding an inquiry against the accused through an inquiry committee under Rules 5(1)(ii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, proceeded against the accused officer by issuing a show-cause notice dated 03-10-2017 under rule 5(1)(iii) of the Rules ibid.
However, Beenish neither submitted her defence reply to the show-cause notice nor joined back her duty which shows reluctance on her part to continue with government service. Therefore, the Member (Admn), after having gone through the case record, recommended to the authority for imposition of the major penalty of “removal from service” upon the accused officer, under Rule 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973.
The Secretary Revenue Division/FBR Chairperson, being the authority in this case, after having considered all aspects of the case and the recommendations of the authorized officer, imposed the major penalty of “removal from service” upon Beenish Iftikhar under Rule 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 with immediate effect.
However, the accused officer will have the right of appeal to the appellate authority as provided under the Civil Servants (Appeals) Rules, 1977.
