RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBER. Vide order of Respondent No.2 a major penalty of dismissal from service dated 19/04/2002 was imposed upon the Appellant who at the relevant the was Inspector of Works at Karachi.
2. Being aggrieved by his dismissal, the Appellant filed this appeal before this Tribunal on 19/06/2002 under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Earlier his departmental appeal was rejected by Respondent No.1 on 23/05/2002.
3. The allegations against the Appellant are that the Appellant while serving as Inspector of Works and posted at Karachi Cantt: in marshalling Yard twice recommended retirement papers of Sabir Hussain S/O Khurshid Hussain who was working as Moawin under his control and caused loss to the Government.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Appellant has stated that he was summoned by the AEN Karachi in connection with enquiry relating to the case of Mr. Sabir Hussain to join the enquiry in his Office and Appellant filed Written Statement. The Appellant had explained that he had sent the retirement application of Sabir Hussain to the Authority for disposal but as per Statement of Clerk Muhammad Ayyubi due to certain shortcomings in Sabir Hussain was sanctioned has been wrongly retired from service the then Works Clerk Muhammad Ali wrote a letter to the Station Master and refunded rather deposited the said retirement dues of the said Sabir Hussain to the tune of Rs.2,17,346/- oh 09/05/2000 and the Station Master after getting receipt of the said amount issued receipt thereof to the said Clerk who later on bad sent the same to the Department. The Appellant has stated that a Charge Sheet was issued to him alongwith Statement of Allegations alleging therein that Sabir Hussain is retired twice and both the his case was forwarded by the Appellant as LO.(P) and then the Appellant failed to detect to loss to the Railway Department which is sennas corruption and fraud. Appellant submitted us reply stating herein that no double payments were ever made by the Appellant to said. Sabir Hussain not he ever facilitated for such payment and it was the sole job of the retirement sanctioning Authority and the Accounts Department who had been entertaining his papers for pension and retirement and the Appellant was no responsible in any manner.
6. The Respondents have stated in the Written Objections that the retirement case of Mr. Sabir Hussain was. Forwarded by the Appellant twicely and he failed to deduct the loss of Railway Administration.
7. It is also an admitted petition that the Appellant also demanded personal hearing but no opportunity for that - was provided of the chance of bringing his defence on record which is a serious irregularity for which major penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him cannot be sustained. We, therefore, accept the appeal set aside the impugned order of dismissal of the Appellant from service and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Appellant in service from the date of his dismissal. The case is however remanded to the Respondents for holding enquiry into the matter strictly in accordance with law providing fair chance to the Appellant of putting up his defence during the enquiry. After the enquiry a copy of the Enquiry Report shall be supplied to him with Second Show Cause Notice providing him an opportunity for personal hearing. This shall be done within a period of four months. The question of back-benefits for the period the Appellant was not in gainful employment shall follow the result of the enquiry proceedings. No order as to costs.
8. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters under registered cover under rule 21 of Service Tribunal.