RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBER.- The Appellant has filed appeal under section 4 read with section 2 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 challenging the order of Compulsory Retirement dated 26.2.2003 passed by Respondent No. 2 against which he preferred departmental appeal to Respondent No. 1 on 20-3-2003 which was rejected on 2.4.2003.
2. The facts of the case are that Appellant joined WAPDA as Line Superintendent Grade-I in May, 1997. According to the Appellant he had unblemished record of service. On 29-11-2002 while posted as Junior Engineer HESCO WAPDA Hyderabad he was placed under suspension by Respondent No. 2 and thereafter was issued show-cause notice for the following charges: "(a) The electrification of village Deewan Wali Ram was not sanctioned under any Scheme/Programme and it was not included in the list of completion of 40% approved villages, whereas it was found that HT PPC Poles 10 Nos. it PCC Poles 4 Nos: Conductor & allied material was installed at site 50 KVA Transformer was found lying in the premises of villager. This material was erected by Mr. Zaman Dasti LS-II, Muhammad Akram LM-II and Sher Khan ALM under your Sub- Division. This work was carried out by taking bride of Rs. 1,60,000/- from the villager with your connivance.
(b) Village Noor Muhammad Brohi, Tehsil Shahdadpur District Sanghar was illegally electrified. The material was issued for Village jan Muhammad Brohi, whereas this material was installed at village Noor Muhammad Brohi and Muhallahs.
(c) The illegal work was carried out under your Sub-Division but you did not take any action as it was done with your connivance."
3. The Appellant tendered his reply to the said show-cause notice and rebutted all the charges levelled against him but on 26-2-2003 he was compulsorily retired from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, hence this appeal.
4. The Respondents in their Parawise Comments have stated that the Appellant was placed under suspension vide Officer Order dated 29-11-2002 and on 27-1-2003 he was served with Show-Cause Notice. According to them the reply of the Appellant was fully considered by the competent authority but it was rejected in view of the findings and recommendation of th$ Inquiry Committee.
They have stated that the Appellant did not comply with Chief Office's Order dated 12.10.1996, therefore, after going through the inquiry report and defence reply of the Appellant, the competent authority passed final order of retirement of the Appellant.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the impugned order as illegal, void as the Appellant was not afforded personal hearing in disregard of the rulings of the Apex Court. He also argued that major punishment Has been imposed upon the Appellant on the basis of the fact- finding enquiry which was conducted in violation of rules and procedure and it was in question answer form. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also stated that impugned order may be set aside and matter be remanded back to the department for de novo departmental action as per rules. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also requested that in view of the infirmities as defined by the learned Counsel for the Appellant the case may be remanded back to the Respondents for de novo proceedings.
7. In view of the above facts, we accept the appeal, set aside impugned order and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Appellant in service from the date of his dismissal from service. The Respondents will however be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the Appellant strictly in accordance with law which should be completed within affidavit period of 4 months and the question of back benefits will be decided on the outcome of these proceedings. No order as to costs.
8. Copies of Judgment be sent to the parties (under register cover) and the relevant quarters under Rule 21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.