' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---Vide order dated 13-6-2000, the Director Telegraphs, STR-I, Hyderabad (Authority) compulsorily retired the appellant under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973. The Appellant preferred appeal against the said order, but his appeal was rejected by the Deputy General-Manager, PTCL, vide order dated 2-2- 2001. Being aggrieved by these orders, the appellant preferred appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 before this Tribunal on 2-3-2001, praying to set aside the impugned orders and to reinstate him in service w.e.f. 13-6-2000, with all back-benefits, treating the intervening period as on duty, and also declaring that the recovery of Rs.4,47,923 could not be effected from the pension of the appellant.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case of the appellant are that having entered into the service of the respondents on 9-2-1963, the appellant was promoted to the post of Assistant on 29-5-1984 and was subsequently allowed Selection Grade (B-15) during the year 1992. He had been performitng his duties with unblemished record, when all of a sudden. He received a show-cause notice dated 26-5-1998 from the respondents in connection with a theft of 727 Telephone Sets worth Rs.6,18,000 from the Divisional Store of which the appellant was Incharge/custodian. It was alleged that the appellant had misappropriated/embezzled the Telephone Sets ,in question. The Appellant replied the show-cause notice. Thereafter, charge-sheet along with statement of allegations was issued to him. The appellant replied the charge-sheet denying the allegations against him. The Appellant replied the final show-cause notice also, but it appears that his plea of noninvolvement in the theft in question was not accepted by the respondents and the punishment of compulsory retirement along with recovery of Rs.4,47,923 imposed upon him.
3. The respondents filed their para-wise comments wherein they rebutted the case of appellant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
5. The thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this being a case of major penalty in which serious allegations of misconduct/theft have been levelled against the appellant which the appellant had denied with full force, as such, a regular inquiry into the allegations against the appellant was absolutely necessary to determine the charges against him, but no regular inquiry giving a chance of cross-examination to the appellant had been held and the pivotal witness Liaquat Ali had not been examined either in the preliminary inquiry or any regular inquiry. The learned counsel for the appellant also assailed the awarding of the two punishments to the appellant at a time.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that full disciplinary proceedings had been drawn by the respondents against the appellant inasmuch as preliminary inquiry was held in which the appellant was also associated; that thereafter show-cause notice was given to the appellant which was also replied by him; that subsequently a regular inquiry was held, but admittedly the witnesses were not cross-examined for which the learned counsel stated that the appellant had never asked respondents to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses and that the respondents had also never refused to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses. Additionally, the learned counsel stated that the appellant was also given final show-cause notice which was also replied by him and thereafter personal hearing was also held.
7. We have carefully considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted position that no regular inquiry in accordance with law, giving any chance of cross- examination to the appellant was held and he was also not furnished any opportunity to bring on record his defence. On the other hand, the pivotal witness Liaquat Ali or any other witness was not examined even in the preliminary inquiry. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that, the appellant had never asked the respondents to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses and that the respondents had also never refused to allow the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses, is beyond our comprehension and is not tenable at law.
Apart from this, we do not see if any regular inquiry was held by the respondents into the allegations against the appellant. The preliminary inquiry, if any, cannot be equated with the regular inquiry, it has been repeatedly held by the apex Court in various cases that where serious allegations of facts are denied by the delinquent official a regular inquiry is mandatory providing him full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to put up his defence. Reliance is placed on 1997 SCM R 1552 (The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, through Sectary Health Department, Lahore and others v. Riaz-ul-Haq).
8. Needless to say that in view of the denial of serious allegations of theft/misappropriation/embezzlement levelled against the appellant, regular inquiry, as mentioned above, was extremely essential in this case. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant from service and .Remand the case to the respondents to hold proper and regular inquiry against the appellant strictly in accordance with law providing full opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead his defence. The inquiry be completed with a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. So far as the question of back-benefits is, concerned, the same would follow the result of the inquiry. No order as to costs.
9. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters.