JUDGMENT QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.- Appellant had been serving in the respondent Karachi Electric Supply Corporation as an XEN when on 12.9.2001 an Army Intelligence Team in a raid outside the Bank of Khyber caught the appellant and secured from him currency notes worth Rs.1,00,000/- in presence of a Magistrate namely Ghulam Mohiyuddin and the staff of Police Station. As a confessed by the appellant, the said amount was paid to him by one Tariq Ikram for restoration of electricity. The appellant was arrested under the Mushirnama. What happened thereafter, the Advocate for the respondents frankly admitted that he did not know. However, on 24.9.2001 a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant which reads as under:- THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED OFFICE OF THE OFFICER CHIEF ENGINEER (DIVL.)
REF. NO. CED-1/01/2001/1723 Dated 24th September, 2001.
Syed Sarfraz Ail Rizvi (M-841-4) Syed Sarfaraz Ali Rizvi Executive Engineer (M&C) City Executive Engineer (KESO/P.No. M-811 1 KESC (Garden Road) 114, Huma Heights, Depot Lines.
Karachi.
Sub: SHO W-CA USE NO TICE.
1. It has been reported by our Intelligence Wing that you received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lac) from Mr. Tariq Ikram, a consumer of KESC, as illegal gratification/bribe, at Bank of Khyber, Karachi for restoration, of disconnected supply of his factory named Pak Exports, on 12.09.2001. You were caught red handed at the gate while coming out of the Bank, by the raiding party which recovered Rs. One lac from your possession, in the presence of Special Magistrate KESC, Mr. Ghulam Mohiuddin.
2. You also accepted the receipt of Rs.70,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Thousand) as bribe earlier from the same consumer for the above-mentioned purpose and recorded your voluntary confessional statement in the presence of Special Magistrate KESC duly signed by you, wherein you accepted receipt of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) and. Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) as bribe from the above-named consumer, Mr. Tariq Ikram.
3. Your above acts constitute misconduct and fall within the orbit of clause 3(1 )(b) and 3(1)(c) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, which tantamount you to be severely punished.
4. You are, as such directed to clarify your position and explain Within 1 5 (fifteen) days of the receipt of this show-cause notice as to why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against you.
5. In case you fail to offer any explanation to the above act of misconduct, within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that you have nothing to offer in your defence, and appropriate disciplinary action will' be taken against you as per laid down rules.
The appellant replied to show-cause notice vide his reply dated 8.10.2001 wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him in the show-cause notice, thereafter, without holding any enquiry and giving him an opportunity for personal hearing, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 19.10.2001 issued by respondent No. 2.
2. The appellant made a representation dated 1.11.2001 to the respondent No. 1 but it was turned down, vide order dated'8.12.2001. The appellant then preferred this appeal before this Tribunal under Section 4 read with Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, praying that his dismissal order be set aside and he be reinstated in service, or in the alternative de novo proceedings be ordered to be initiated against him.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned Advocate for the appellant reiterated the facts of the case leading to the appeal as already mentioned above and he has repeated the above- mentioned prayer of the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents admits that no F.I.R, of the incident was lodged against the appellant. There is no written complaint against the appellant by Ikram Tariq or anyone else for demanding bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- that no Mushirnama of arrest of the appellant is available in the record of the respondents that the money secured from the appellant did not bear any mark or the numbers of the currency notes nor the statements of witnesses were recorded by the raiding team or the Magistrate in whose presence the bribe money is alleged to have been secured by the team.
The fate on destination of the not known to the learned Advocate for the respondents. The learned Advocate submits that he is unaware about any record of the incident and he states that record might be with the respondents. He agrees that this is a fit case for de novo proceedings against the appellant.
4. The allegations against the appellant who is the responsible Officer of the K.E.S.C are very serious in nature which allegations he had denied and such allegations needed to be proved for bringing home the charge of misconduct against the appellant by means of a regular enquiry providing opportunity for cross- examining the witnesses as also to put up his defence but that has not been done. As such principles of natural justice had been violated by the respondents. As such, we set aside the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant dated 19.10.2001 and reinstate him in service from the date of his dismissal directing the respondents to hold de novo disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the same show-cause notice strictly in accordance with law within a period of four months. The payment of back benefits will depend on the result of the enquiry.