QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.- -- On facts and law, the above two appeals are identical with each other and also with Appeal No. 356(K)(CS)/2001 (Muhammad Ibrahim Abro v.
The Inspector General, Pakistan Railways Police, C.P.O., Lahore and others), which has already been decided by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 14.6.2004. We shall, therefore, dispose of the two appeals jointly.
2. The facts leading to these appeals are that on receiving complainant that theft of diesel was being committed by certain employees of the Railways Police from the Diesel Depot, Pakistan Railways, Karachi Cantt., the Army Vigilance Cell alongwith a police party raided the said depot on 17.5.2001 and arrested appellants Muhammad Aslam (ASI) and Azmat Ali (Constable) as also Muhammad Ibrahim Abro alongwith others. Consequently, FIR No. 26/2001, dated 17.5.2001 was lodged against them and others and they were sent upto the Court of Special Judge Anti- Corruption (Central) Karachi. The appellants and others remained in jail custody, and after release on bail from the jail, they approached the concerned authorities of Railways Police and obtained from them the order of their dismissal from service dated 26.6.2001. The order of dismissal showed that an ex parte order of dismissal was passed against them for not replying the show-cause notice issued to them.
3. The appellants filed departmental appeals which were not responded; hence, they filed the present appeals before this Tribunal on the dates, as mentioned above. They alleged in the memo, of appeals that no show- cause notice was issued to them and they were condemned unheard, by imposing a major penalty of dismissal without any inquiry into the allegations against them levelled in the show-cause notices (which were not received by them) during their incardination in Karachi Jail. They prayed that their dismissal, being illegal and void, the same be set aside 'and they be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
4. The respondents filed the written comments wherein they have admitted the non-service of show-cause notice on the appellants and to have imposed the penalty of dismissal on the appellants by an ex parte order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
6. There is no cavil to the proposition that the pendency of criminal proceedings against an employee is no bar to the disciplinary proceedings against him, but such proceedings must be in accordance with law. The appellants have been punished under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, dispensing with fie need of any regular inquiry, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, for the reason that the appellants and other were hauled up on the spot while they were stealing the diesel belonging to the respondents-Railways. That may be so, but we find that no copy of the show-cause notice has been filed alongwith the written comments and it has not been proved that the same was served upon the appellants. On the other hand, it has been admitted in the written comments that the show-cause notice was not served upon the appellants. Thus the disciplinary proceedings against the appellants had been initiated without any basis and ex parte order of their dismissal had been illegally passed without any inquiry and without personal hearing, depriving the appellants to put up their defence. As such, we have no hesitation in holding that the ex parte order of dismissal of the appellants was null and void, liable to be set aside. The case of appellants is identical with the case of the above- referred appeal of Muhammad Ibrahim Abro, which was remanded by this Tribunal for de novo proceedings. The judgment of this Bench in the said case also mutatis mutandis applies to the case of the present appellants. We, therefore, allow the two appeals set aside the order of their dismissal from service and direct the respondents to reinstate them in service from the date of their dismissal. However, we direct the respondents to conduct de novo proceedings against the appellants strictly in accordance with law, which be initiated and completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Full opportunity be provided to the appellants to contest the allegations levelled against them. The question of back benefits for the period they were not gainfully employed anywhere else, shall be decided on the outcome of the de novo proceedings against them. No order as to costs.
7. Copies of judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters, under Rule 21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.