QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.- Appellant was UDC in Railway Department. As per his entitlement he obtained (Privilege Ticket Order) P.T.O, for his son namely Muhammad Bilal for visiting, Lahore. It is alleged that the appellant sold that P.T.O, to one passenger namely Muhammad Aslam, who was charged a sum of Rs.755/: at Khanewal Station by the concerned Railway Staff for illegally holding the P.T.O, of the said son of the appellant. When this fact came to the knowledge, of the Railway authorities they issued show- cause notice dated 14.6.2002 alongwith statement of allegations against the appellant which reads as under:- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS No. 170-E/12392/P-1. Divisional Office, Sukkur SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
1. Whereas you are charged with misconduct as per statement of charges attached;
2. And whereas on the basis of documentary evidence available, it t is not considered necessary to have formal inquiry against you and that proceedings are being initiated under Section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 which might entail imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service as specified in Section 3 of the said Ordinance.
3. Now, therefore, you are required to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why the proposal action should not be taken against you.
4. If no response received from you within the time stipulated above, it would, be presumed that either you have no defence to offer and/or you have willfully declined to do so. The case shall then be decided as 'ex parte' without further reference.
Sd/- Divisional Superintendent/Sukkur (Competent Authority)
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS WHEREAS you Mr. Muhammad Sharif, UDC (BPS-7), Pakistan Railways Boys High School, Sukkur are charged with serious misconduct gross neglect of duty inasmuch as that:
1. That on 12.2.2002, during checking of 23 Up (QTA Express) Ex.KWL-SWAL by Vigilance Team, it was found that one passenger named Muhammad Asghar had been holding Economy Class EPT No. 843268, dated 11.2.2002 valid from SUK- LHR exchanged in lieu of 'E' Class PTO No. 0739759, dated 11.2.2002 issued by Hd. Master, P. Rlys, Bosy High School, Sukkur. The passenger was also holding return journey PTO No. 073760 (LHR-SUK) issued by the same school. On enquiry above- named passenger could not prove his identity as Railway employee, as such EPT No. 843268 and return journey PTO were confiscated from him and he was charged Rs.755/- under EFT No. 490397.
0n enquiry, the passenger disclosed that you had provided him PTO No. 0739759-60/2. He was also not having Departmental Identity Card. The passenger further indicated that you had provided him POTs after getting grills of air cooler fabricated.
(2) That as per Pass Manual Rule No. 182 minimum penalty of misuse of Pass/PTOs by any Railway Officers/officials is 'Removal from Service', but you deliberately violated the above rules with your ulterior motives and mala fide intention.
(3) That you have persistent reputation of being a corrupt individual, black-mailer and not enjoying good reputation.
(4) That you have ceased to be an efficient employee.
Sd/- (Yakoob Ali Zardari)
Divisional Superintendent/Sukkur.
(Competent Authority)
The appellant replied the show-cause notice wherein he admitted to have obtained the P.T.O, but he stated that he had given that PTO to his neighbour as his son was travelling with his said neighbour who was checked and charged a sum of Rs.755/-. He stated that the ST of Multan who had charged his neighbour as mentioned above be called and examined in the matter.
2. The respondents filed Comments wherein they denied to have received the reply of show-cause notice, as such, they held ex parte enquiry against the appellant which resulted in the dismissal of the appellant under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
3. Aggrieved by his dismissal vide order dated 13.8.2002 of the respondents the appellant filed this appeal against the said order with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and reinstate him in service with back-benefits.
4. We have heard the learned counsel fdr the parties and perused the record. As argued by the learned counsel for appellant we find that major penalty has been awarded to ti e appellant without resorting to the mandatory regular enquiry into the allegations against the appellant and without affording any opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents' side and to put up his defence during the enquiry proceedings. The appellant was also not afforded an opportunity for personal hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the respondents had since not -received the reply of the show-cause notice, they were compelled to'' take ex parte proceedings against the appellant and for-that reason no regular enquiry could be held and no opportunity could be given to the appellant for personal hearing. He stated that the respondents had received the reply of the show-cause notice of the appellant but that was received subsequently during the proceedings before this Tribunal.
5. Since major penalty cannot be imposed without regular inquiry specially when there is factual controversy which needs evidence to prove the facts alleged against the appellant, and whereas the appellant was not given an opportunity of personal hearing we hold that the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents and put up his defence and was also condemned unheard, we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and reinstate the appellant in service from the date of his dismissal under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. We, however, order that de novo proceedings on the same charge be initiated against the appellant within a period of four (4) months. The question of back-benefits shall be decided on the basis of the result of the enquiry.
Announced-in open Court.