QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER. - The appellant had been serving Pakistan Railways for the last 25 years. Lastly he was posted as Special Ticket Examiner at Sukkur when he was dismissed from service vide order dated 8.5.2002 of Dost AN Leghari, for Divisional Superintendent, P.R., Sukkur. Against this he preferred a departmental appeal on 10.5.2002 which was rejected vide order dated 6.11.2002; hence, he filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 30.11.2002 under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 with a prayer to set-aside the impugned order of his dismissal from service and to reinstate the appellant to his post of Special Ticket Examiner with full back- benefits.
2. The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had been initiated by issuing a show-cause notice on 3.2002 (date not mentioned) which reads as under:- "No. E-19/1/P-II. Dated: _.3.2002.
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
1. Whereas you are charged with misconduct as per statement of charges attached.
2. And whereas on the 'basis of available documentary evidence, it is not considered necessary to have formal enquiry 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 Form 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 proposed 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.
5. Please state if you desire to be heard in person.
DA/As above.
Sd/-12/3 (Iqbal Samad Khan)
General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore.
Mr. Munir Ahmed STE/Sukkur Division, C/O: DISTE/Sukkur."
Alongwith the above show-cause notice the statement of allegations was also issued to the appellant, which is reproduced below:- "STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS WHEREAS, you Mr. Munir Ahmed, STE, Sukkur Division are charged for serious misconduct, inefficiency and corruption for the following charges:
1. That according to available record your have been awarded fifteen (15) different punishment, which reflects high inefficiency and misconduct on your part.
2. That you have been enjoying good reputation during your service.
3. That you have persistent reputation of being corrupt employee of Pakistan Railways.
4. That you have ceased to be an efficient employee.
You are, therefore, being proceeded under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
Sd/- 12/3 (Iqbal Samad Khan)
General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore."
The appellant replied the show-cause notice wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him in the statement of allegations. The respondents did not consider the defence of the appellant taken-up in the reply to the show-cause notice and the appellant was dismissed from service vide notice dated 8.5.2002 after a so-called personal hearing in which no heed was paid to the submission made by him. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal but the respondent No. 1 kept it pending for six months and after calling comments from General Manager Railways rejected it without assigning any reason; hence, this appeal.
3. The respondents filed the written comments wherein details of fifteen (15) minor penalties earlier awarded to the appellant during a period from 1978 to 1998 were given, It was stated in the comments that in the allegations No. 2 in the statement of allegations instead of bad 'good' was written inadvertently.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case and the citations, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. We have observed that the respondents have imposed major penalty in a number of cases on the Railway employees on the basis of past minor punishments, awarded to such employees on the general allegations of inefficiency and corruption without holding any regular inquiry into such allegations, In this appeal, inter alia, two important points arise for determination which are:
(i) Whether minor penalties awarded to the appellant in the past could be made basis for imposing major penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant;
(ii) Whether the major penalty of dismissal could be imposed on the appellant without holding a regular inquiry into the allegations levelled against him.
6. In a number of identical cases this Tribunal on the basis of law as laid down by the apex Court answered both the points in the negative. Reference can be made to two identical cases being Appeal Nos. 42 to 45, 50, 51, 61 and. 62(Q)(CS)/2002 (Sher Muhammad and others v. Pakistan Railways) and 25(Q)(CS)/2002 (Khurshid Nadir v. Pakistan Railways).
7. A perusal of the record shows that the charges against the appellant were stereotyped. We have observed with dismay and surprise that the General Manager, Pakistan Railways did not even care to go through the statement of allegations wherein allegation No. 2 reads as under:- "You have been enjoying good reputation during your service."
8. The seriousness of the charges against the appellant is evident from the above charge which has been made basis for the dismissal of appellant, In fact, there is no cogent evidence in support of the allegations of the appellant having persistent reputation of being corrupt and of ceasing to be an efficient employee. The respondents for proving these two charges relied on the 15 (fifteen) minor punishments. No detail of such minor punishments had been given in the statement of allegations. However, details of such minor punishments have been given in the para-wise comments filed by the respondents. These punishments were awarded during a period from 1978 to 1998. As per clause-iv of Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual Volume-I, the minor punishments awarded under Efficiency and Discipline Rules should be written of, if the employees do not commit any irregularity for two years after the expiry of the punishments, It is an admitted position that the last punishment awarded to the appellant was in the year 1998 and the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were initiated in March, 2002 which means that the minor penalties awarded to the appellant had already expired. This has neither been rebutted nor controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents, as such, the minor punishments which appellant had already suffered and which have become a chapter past and closed cannot be used to vex the appellant twice. Vexing the appellant twice would fall within the principle of 'double jeopardy'. This is supported by authorities reported in 1989 SGMR 1224, 2002 PLC (CS) 738 and PLJ 2004 TRC (Service)
1. We, therefore, hold that the minor punishments awarded to the appellant cannot be used even as a corroborative piece of evidence because the appellant was not alleged to have committed any act or omission amounting to misconduct after the year 1998, when his minor punishments had lost their force.
9. Coming to the second point, we have to say that the apex Court has consistently held throughout in a number of cases identical and otherwise that no major penalty could be imposed in disciplinary proceedings against the employees without holding regular inquiry into the serious allegations of fact, which were denied by such employees and the same needed to be proved by recording of evidence through regular inquiry providing the accused/employee full opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses and to bring on record his defence and thereafter also providing an opportunity of personal hearing. Needless to say that in the instant case also the allegations of corruption and inefficiency needed to be proved by means of a regular inquiry with providing an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the departmental witnesses and to put up his defence also. That having not been done, the respondents cannot go to prove their allegations of inefficiency and corruption against the appellant.
10. In the above view of the matter, we have no hesitation in accepting. The appeal. We accordingly accept the appeal, set-aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reinstate the' appellant in service to the post he was dismissed from with all back-benefits for the period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere for which he shall file an affidavit before the Authority. However, it will be open to the respondents to hold a de novo inquiry against the appellant strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four months. No order as to costs.
11. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters.