RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBER.- The appellant who was imposed penalty of "reduction to lower stage in the scale by five steps" vide order dated 4.7.2000 filed appeal bearing No. 251(K)(CS)/2000 before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 25.4.2003 set aside the impugned order dated 4.7.2000 directing the respondents to hold fresh enquiry, after making all the relevant record available and after giving full chance to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and to put up his defence within three months of the said judgment. The Tribunal further held that the consequential benefits would depend on the report of the enquiry which be conducted and concluded within the stipulated period, the appellant would be entitled to all consequential benefits. On 30.5.2003 in pursuance of the judgment of this Tribunal the respondents by setting aside the said punishment ordered for defendant novo departmental action against the appellant.
On 12.6.2003 respondent No. 3 appointed Mr. Feroz Ahmed Junejo, Director Customer Services Zone-IV STR-III, Karachi as Enquiry Officer in the case of the appellant. The Enquiry Officer vide letter of Explanation dated 26.6.2003 on the basis of four charges i.e. Allegations Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 directed the appellant 4o submit his reply. The Enquiry Officer also issued questionnaire to the appellant on 11.7.2003 and directed him to submit reply to the said questions, it Is pertinent to mention here that Advocate for the appellant had filed application for implementation of the judgment while the respondent had filed an application for extension of the in Appeal No. 251(K)
(CS)/2000 and vide order dated 19.9.2003 this Tribunal had rejected the application for extension of the for enquiry. On 27.8.2003 respondent No. 3 issued show-cause notice to the appellant alongwith copy of the enquiry report and directed him to submit his defence reply. The appellant on 10.9.2003 submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice and rebutted the charges levelled against him.
On 24.11.2003 respondent called the appellant for personal hearing on 3.12.2003. The appellant appeared in the said enquiry and explained his case to respondent No. 3 to which he was fully satisfied. On 5.12.2003 appellant filed an application for payment of difference of pay. Respondent No. 3 sent the case of the appellant to respondent No. 2. On 26.1.2004 respondent No. 3 awarded major penalty to the appellant of reduction to lower stage in the scale by five steps for three years and conveyed such letter to the appellant. The order is reproduced hereunder:- "PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED HEADQUARTERS, G-8/4. ISLAMABAD Pak Telecom No. S. 23-26/2000 Islamabad the 26th January, 2004 SUBJECT: DE NOVO INQU IRY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. BEHROLAL, VIRJANAI, D.E. (PHONES) CUSTOMER SERVICES CENTRE SITE DIVISION, KARACHI.
Mr. Behrolal Virjani, while working as D.E. (Phones), STR-II, Karachi was proceeded against under the rules and served with a charge-sheet, vide G.M. STR-III, Karachi's No. STR-IM/SP-363/GO/5, dated 30.12.1999 and, on finalization of disciplinary proceedings, was awarded major penalty of "Reduction to lower stage in the scale by five steps", vide punishment orders of even number dated 4.7.2000.
2. After exhausting departmental remedy, Mr. Virjani filed an Appeal No. 251(K)(CS)/2000 in the FST, Karachi which in its judgment dated 25.4.2003 passed orders to set aside the above-referred major punishment and to initiate fresh inquiry proceedings against the officer. The orders of the FST, Karachi were accordingly complied with directing the G.M. STR-III, Karachi (authorized officer) to initiate de novo inquiry proceedings against the office strictly following the rules/regulations, vide this office orders of even number dated 30.5.2003.
3. The authorized officer accordingly initiated de novo inquiry proceedings against Mr. Bherulal Virjani, D.E. At regional level and, on finalization of disciplinary proceedings, referred the case to the authority alongwith recommendations to retain the major penalty "Reduction to lower stage1 in the scale by five steps" against the delinquent officer.
4. The "authority" after having gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer, defence reply of the accused and other facts and circumstances of the case, has imposed the major penalty of "Reduction to lower stage in the scale by five steps for three years" upon Mr. Behrolal Virjani, D.E.
(Phones) Customer Services Centre, SITE Division, Karachi.
Sd /- (JAVED KHAN)
DIRECTOR (STAFF-1)
Communicating Officer"
2. The appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of major punishment dated 26.1.2004 sent his appeal to the respondent No. 1 on 25.2.2004. The period of 90 days had elapsed but no reply was communicated to the appellant who after waiting for 90 days w.e.f.
25.2.2004 to 25.5.2004 filed appeal within next 30 days in this Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondents were required to have completed the proceedings through de novo action within the. He contended that the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 251(K)(CS)/2000 was passed on 25.4.2003. The respondents filed application for extension of the which was rejected on 19.9.2003 although they were required to have passed the order upto 31.7.2003, hence the entire action taken by the respondents against the appellant is beyond the period fixed by this Tribunal which is not only unlawful but amounts to dis-respect to the judgment of this Tribunal. He further contended that enquiry was conducted in answer and question forms which is not allowed in the law as held in 1993 SCMR 1440 and 1996 SCMR 802. He also contended that fact-finding enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and major punishment cannot be awarded on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, hence the punishment so awarded to the appellant by the respondents on 26.1.2004 is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on 1993 SCMR 603, 2001 SCMR 256 and SBLR 2003 Tr.C 164. He contended that in earlier round of litigation it was submitted by the respondents that no record is available and documents placed in file also show that such record till date is not available with the respondents. He contended that punishment is always awarded on the basis of evidence and finding of Enquiry Officer is inconsistence to the position on file, hence the finding of Enquiry Officer is illegal and further order of penalty is also unlawful. He placed reliance on 1984 TD 101, 2003 TD (Service) 434 and 2003 PLC (CS) 1445. He contended that the enquiry is defective and suffers from legal infirmities. He placed reliance on 1997 TD (Service) 247, 1985 PLC (CS) 518 and 2000 PLC (CS)
375/1993 PLC (CS) 878. He contended that major penalty imposed on the basis of shorter procedure without conducting regular departmental enquiry is not tenable in law. He placed reliance on PLJ 1997 1393, 2003 SCMR 207, 2004 PLC (CS) 328 and NLR 2003 (Service)
133. He contended that major penalty of reduction to five stages in the scale for three years means reduction to one stage lower and not five steps as indicated in the order, hence punishment so awarded to the appellant is unlawful. He placed reliance on 2003 PLC (CS) 1372. He contended that the impugned order dated 26.1.2004 is not speaking order. He placed reliance on 2003 PLC (CS)
433 and 1249, 1998 SCMR 2268 and 1991 SCMR 2330.
4. It is a fact that the fact-finding enquiry was held after the application for extension of the filed by the respondents was rejected by this Tribunal, thus the enquiry was not conducted within stipulated the, hence the respondents did not pay any respect to the judgment of this Tribunal, therefore, the appellant as per judgment dated 25.4.2005 passed in Appeal No. 251(K)(CS)/2000 is entitled to all consequential benefits. We therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the punishment of reduction to lower stage in the scale by five steps. The-appellant would be entitled to all back benefits. No order as to costs.
5. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties (under register cover) and to the relevant quarters under registered cover under Rule 21 of Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1974. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.