RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBER.-- While the Appellant had been serving as Valveman under Respondent-Organization he was removed from service on 23.4.2002, against which he preferred his representation to the Respondent but the same remained un responded; hence, the Appellant filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973, praying to set-aside the impugned order of removal from service dated 23.4.2002 issued by Respondent No. 2 and to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits by treating the out of service period spent on duty.
2. The charge against the Appellant vide statement of charges dated 5.3.2002 reads as under:- "No. 1-W/Vigilance Cell/2001.
Date: 5.3.2002.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
1. Whereas you Mr. Muhammad Afzal Valveman under 10W/P/KC are charged with misconduct for the following charges and other relevant circumstances:-
(i) You are residing in the Railway accommodation since July, 1998 and also receiving the house rent from Railway besides Railway Electric and water without paying charges are using.
(ii) You have managed to be rent out one room to the outsider on a rent of Rs. 300/- per month since July, 1998 to March-2001.
(iii) You are not performing your duty, properly for which your are giving bribe (BHATTA) to the Works Mistrv.
You are therefore, proceeded under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
Sd/- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS KARACHI (COMPETENT AUTHORITY)"
In his reply to the charge, the Appellant denied the above- mentioned charges.
3. Alongwith the statement of charge, a show- cause notice dated 5.3.2002 was also served upon the Appellant for imposing of major penalty of dismissal as specified in Section, 3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
4. The reply to the show-cause notice/reply of charges was not found by the Respondents as satisfactory, therefore, without holding any inquiry into the allegations against the Appellant and dispensing with the inquiry, as already stated in the show-cause notice, a major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the Appellant .Vide dated 23.4.2002 issued by Respondent No. 2. Hence this appeal.
5. In the written comments, almost nothing has been said on behalf of the Respondents except that his appeal was rejected by the Respondents and the Appellant was informed on 21.10.2002.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the cause. We have also perused the authorities cited at the bar.
7. The Appellant in his affidavit has stated that Vigilance Cell Staff had recorded his Statement under coercion and pressure against Tariq/Abbas and Muhammad Iqbal but there was no reality in the said story. There is no evidence on record in support of the charges against the Appellant. On the other hand, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1996 PLC(CS) 1, NLR 1981 (Service) 30 and 1997 SCM R 1543 in case of major penalty where there are serious allegations and the same are denied by the accused, a regular inquiry into the allegations is absolutely necessary. Further that in case of major penalty a final show-cause notice has also to be issued and the accused has to be given a chance of personal hearing. That having not been done, the learned Counsel for the Respondents found it difficult to convince the Tribunal for the imposition of major penalty upon the Appellant without any inquiry.
8. Since major penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant without holding regular inquiry, issuing final show-cause notice and giving the Appellant an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set-aside the impugned order of removal of the Appellant from service and direct Respondents to hold regular against the Appellant strictly in accordance with law providing him full opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, after issuing him final show-cause notice as also personally hearing the Appellant, pass appropriate order in the case. The back benefits will depend upon the result of the inquiry, which shall be held and completed within a period of four months. No order as to costs.
9. The case stands remanded' accordingly. Copies of the Judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters.