' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).---Appellant Rao Shabbir Ahmad was a Line Superintendent-II in the office of XEN, Construction Operation, Sargodha under FESCO. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 29-5-2000 against which he filed a departmental appeal on 12-6-2000 which too was dismissed on 12-9-2000. Aggrieved by his dismissal order and by the order by which his departmental appeal was rejected he has filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. He has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he be reinstated into service with back-benefits.
2. A letter of explanation under rule 5 of WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 was issued to the appellant on 27-9-1997. It was stated in the charge-sheet that the appellant had drawn 13437 meters conductors in excess for the rehabilitation of Blund Hill Feeder. While issuing the charge-sheet Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khalid, Project Director dispensed with the regular inquiry against the appellant. The main contention of the appellant is that since serious charges of embezzlement had been levelled against him, therefore, a regular inquiry was mandatory for the determination of the true facts which was not held. The other argument of the appellant is that he had already been retired from service by the respondents on 15-7-1999 and once he was retired from service he could not be dismissed from service through the impugned order.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the facts were proved on record, therefore, there was no need of holding any inquiry. As regards the contention of the appellant that he had been retired from service and could not be dismissed from service it is submitted that the appellant had been taken back in service as the operation of his retirement order had been suspended by the Honourable High Court in a Writ Petition filed by him.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. Normally when serious charges of corruption or embezzlement are levelled against a civil servant then a detailed departmental inquiry becomes necessary in order to find out the true facts.
But there are always cases in which such inquiry is not needed. When the facts are apparent and are proved from the documents and are available on record the Competent Authority can refuse to hold a regular inquiry. The power to dispense with the inquiry has been given to the Competent Authority by WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. The rule relating to dispensation of inquiry is not redundant. This rule exists and the power which it gives to the Competent Authority can be exercised in appropriate cases. The present case is one of the cases in which inquiry was not needed as the facts were proved from the documents. From the Stock Register it was determined that the appellant had drawn excess meter conductor. In his reply to final show-cause notice it was conceded by him that during his suspension he had returned 6883 meter conductors to the store. It is correct that the appellant has given a qualified statement that this conductor meter had been drawn by him for 'other works'. However, he had failed to give the details of `other works'. The very fact that he had returned 6883 meter conductors to the store proved that he had drawn meter conductors in excess and in this manner the charge levelled against him was fully proved. The regular inquiry was correctly dispensed with by the Competent Authority. We find no legal defect in his that order.
6. The second argument of the appellant that since he had already been retired from service, therefore, he could not be dismissed from service vide the impugned order is not correct. He was taken back in service because the operation of order of his compulsory retirement had been suspended by the Honourable High Court in a writ petition filed by him. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed but with that order by which the appellant was taken back on duty had not been vacated automatically. The appellant had remained in service even after the stay order issued in his favour had been vacated on dismissal of his writ petition. The appellant was in service of the respondents when the impugned order was passed against him. There is, therefore, no force in his arguments that having once been retired from service he could not be dismissed from service. The argument is repelled.
7. For the above reasons we find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.
8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Parties are informed.