QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUL MEMBER.- The Appellant was Assistant Way Inspector I Respondents-Pakistan Railways, when by order date 15.10.2002, he was removed from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. He mad appeal against it which was not replied; hence, he filed the appeal before the Tribunal On 10.1.2003, praying to se aside the impugned order and to reinstate him in service with all back benefits. Further prayer was made to restrain thel Respondents from not to dispossess/eject the Appellant from quarter No. E-29, Railway Colony, Rahimyar Khan.
2. We have heard the learned counsel lor the parties and perused the record including the comments, filed on behalf of the Respondents.
3. The proceedings against the Appellant had beer initiated by affidavit show-cause notice 10.9.2002 alongwith statement of charges, which is as under:-
(i) 40% of their pay is pocketed by you per month through Gang-mates as illegal bribe.
(ii) You accept Rs. 500/- from each staff for recommending One Month Leave.
(iii) That you do not extend cooperation with Gang staff for resolving their genuine problems without accepting/demanding illegal bribe from them."
In the show-cause notice formal regular inquiry was dispensed with as the action against the Appellant was allegedly based on documentary evidence.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant had denied, the serious allegations against him in his reply to the show-cause notice as also in his J departmental appeal.
Even then no regular inquiry was held against him and he was not given any chance to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses and by bringing on record evidence on his behalf; that the Appellant was thereby deprived of his right of natural justice to defend himself, as such, the proceedings against the Appellant were null and void. He relied on PLJ 2004 Tr. C. (Service) 1, PLJ 1998 Tr. C (Service) 238, NLR 2003 (Service) T and 2004 SCJ 455. The learned counsel further stated that an opportunity of personal hearing was also not. Given to the Appellant, which further vitiated the disciplinary proceedings against him. He relied on 2003 PLC(CS) 365 and PLD 2004 SC 441.
5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently stated that inquiry against the Appellant was held, but the frankly admitted that it was a preliminary inquiry. He further admitted that witnesses were not cross examined, but his contention was that chance of cross examining the witnesses was given to the Appellant.
6. In rebuttal, the. Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that witnesses in preliminary were, in fact, examined in absence of the Appellant. He relied on 1993 SCM R 1440.
7. In the emerging contentious arguments of both the sides, we and that the allegations of facts, levelled against the Appellant, would not have been proved without affidavit regular inquiry, which is admittedly not done in this case. We, are, therefore, of firm opinion that entire disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant had been vitiated and thus null and void. Reliance is placed on 2004 SCJ 455. We, therefore, allow this appeal with direction to reinstate the Appellant in service and initiate a de novo disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of same allegation strictly in accordance with law. The inquiry be completed within affidavit period of 4 months from the date of receipt of affidavit copy of this judgment, The question of back benefits shall depend on the result of de novo proceedings. No order as to costs.
8. Announced in open Court.
9. Copies of the Judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rule-21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.