RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBER.- Appellant who was R.C.C in Booking Office in Pakistan Railway Karachi Division was issued Show Cause Notice dated 15/05/2002 for misconduct and breach of discipline for which major penalty of removal from service was proposed. As per Statement of Allegations the Appellant committed followings acts of misconduct and inefficiency:- "STATEMENT OF CHARGES
1. Whereas you Mr. Nimanoo, RCC, Karachi City are charged with gross misconduct inefficiency and corruption for the following charges and other relevant circumstances:-
(a) While you were working at Booking Office, Karachi City on 5.10.1994, one passenger Mr. Ramazan approached you for one economy class ticked for his mother Ex: Karachi City to Machianwala by 11- Up. You demanded Rs. 185.00 against actual fare of Rs. 160.00 and prepared EFT No.266405 for the actual amount
(b) but when the passenger protested for excess charging you cancelled the EFT and used filthy language against him which caused great inconvenience to the passenger and bad name of Railway Administration.
(c) You were found involved in short remittance of cash 49 times, thus you violated Rule 57 Chapter-V. of Commercial Manual.
(d) It has been reported that you enjoy bad reputation.
The above charges clearly show that you have ceased to be efficient.
2. You, are therefore, being proceeded against under Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance 2000-2001.
Sd/- (Abdul Wahab Awan) Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi, The Appellant submitted his reply dated 24/05/2002 to the Show Cause notice wherein he stated that no complaint was lodged against him for excess, charging upon the Appellant under Removal, from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the punishment imposed upon .Him the Appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal.
4. The Respondents filed the Parawise Comments wherein they stated that the Appellant was punished under said Ordinance by observing necessary legal procedure. As to the excess charging by the Appellant the Respondents admittedly did not hold enquiry and there was no complaint in that connection.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have perused the record.
6. We find that a petty offence of charging excess Rs.25/- from one passenger for which the Appellant was not eyen punished has now been used after 8 years to prove the charge of corruption against him. This has seriously disturbed us for the reason that if the Appellant had committed any offence as alleged why the departmental authorities had slept over it and had not taken any action against the Appellant at that the and, what prevented them to use such an did incident to prove the charge against the Appellant which has no basis as no incident or event, it any, had taken place after the promulgation of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 as has been cited in the Charge Sheet. The entire proceedings against the Appellant are beyond our apprehension as to why the Railway department has to revive the post and closed events to dismiss its employee without resorting to proper procedure as provided under the said Ordinance and failed to hold any enquiry even in a case of major penalty. We are, therefore, not willing to condone the illegal acts of the Respondents. We, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the impugned order dated. 2.7.2002 and reinstate the Appellant in service from the date of his dismissal with all back- benefits minus whatever he earned during gainful employment if "any, in the intervening period. For that purpose he shall file his Affidavit before the Respondents Authority.
7. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters under registered cover under rule 21 of Service Tribunal.