QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.--- The above-mentioned three appeals of Appellant Nisar Ahmed Qureshi are based on almost- identical charge/allegations; hence we shall disposed of these appeals by this single/common judgment.
2. While serving with the Respondents, the Appellant was charge-sheeted twice on one and the same date and no receipt of reply he was awarded punishment twice. One reduction to one stage lower in the scale in respect of charge-sheet No. A & P/Enq. Cell/2000/1408 dated .14.6.2000 and the second one was in respect of ncharge-sheet No. A & P/E.q. Cell/2000/1444, dated 14.6.2000. He filed departmental appeals against the punishments imposed on him, but both were rejected vide order dated 12.2.2002; hence, he filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 12.3.2002 against rejection of both departmental appeals, but subsequently in respect of charge-sheet No. CAP/DM(059106)/2002/PA/A-31, dated 14.1.2002 order was passed by the Respondents whereby pay of the Appellant was reduced/demoted pay scale/post, which was to be fixed as per rules on the subject against which he filed another appeal bearing No. 438 (K)(CE)/2002 on 15.5.2002. The third appeal No. 897(K)(CE).2002 filed on 21.10.2002 against the reduction to one stage, lower in the the scale which punishment was awarded to the Appellant vide order dated 21.8.2002. The departmental appeal was rejected. The punishment was based on charge-sheet No A & P/Enq.
Cell/2000/1408, dated 12.6,2000.
3. The material parts of the all the charges in the above three cases, appeals are reproduced as under:- PAKISTAN STEEL (CENTRAL ADM INSTRATION)
No. A & P/Enq. Cell/2000, 1408 Dated: 13th June, 2000 Mr. Nisar Ahmed Qureshi, Deputy Manager, (PNO: 58106), Bulk Water Supply, PAKISTAN STEEL CHARGE-SHEET As a result of Special Audit on the affairs of Bulk Water Supply Department covering the period from 1981 to 30th June, 1999 conducted by Internal Audit Department, Pakistan. Steel, it has been revealed the you being a responsible officer failed to safeguard the interest of Pakistan Steel, grossly ignored the SOPs and committed the blatant irregularity of not raising Water Consumption bill from M/s. Chiragh Sun Engineering Company as per standard formula i.e. As per discharge dia consumption and improper disconnection of water connection with mala fide intention and with the sole purpose to obtain wrongful gains causing huge financial loss of Rs 2,89,250/- to Pakistan Steel.
2. Your above acts of fraud/dishonesty, misappropriation, breach of trust and dereliction of duty besides being subversive of discipline amount to misconduct under Pakistan Steel Officers Service Rules and Regulations.
3. .....................................
Sd /- (HAMID PERVAIZ)
Incharge (A & P)"
PAKISTAN STEEL (CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION)
No. A&P/Enq. Cell/2000/1444 Dated: 13th June, 2000.
Mr. Nisar Ahmed Qureshi, Dy. Manager, (PNO: 058106), Bulk Water Supply, PAKISTAN STEEL.
CHARGE-SHEET.
As a result of Special Audit on the affairs of Bulk Water Supply Department covering the period from 1981 to 30th June, 1999 conducted by Internal Audit Department, Pakistan Steel, it has been revealed that you being a responsible officer holding the position of I/c. Billing & Recovery, Bulk Water Supply Department failed to safe-guard the interest of Pakistan Steel, grossly ignored the SOPs and committed irregularities in the case of M/s. Multipole Industries as per details given below with the mala fide intention and with the sole purpose to obtain wrongful gains for yourself causing a huge total financial loss Rs. 12,06,341/- to Pakistan Steel:-
(a) You failed to recover water consumption from M/s. Multipole Industries on account of their authorized connection amounting to Rs. 4,16,966/-, Rs. 7,29,150/- on account of their unauthorized connection and Rs. 60,225/- on account of outstanding Security Deposit.
(b) You failed to take measures for disconnection of the wa er connection of the above firm who stood defaulter from May, 1966 to February, 1999 in accordance with the policy on the subject v' lich says that in case of default exceeding three months water connection is liable to be; disconnected.
2. Your above acts of fraud/dishonesty, misappropriation, breach of trust and dereliction of duty besides being subversive of discipline amount to misconduct under Pakistan Steel Officer's Service Rules and Regulations.
3. ........................................
Sd/- (HAMID PERVAIZ)
Incharge (A & P)"
PAKISTAN STEEL (CEN FRAL ADMINISTRATION)
No. A & P/Enq. Cell/2000/1408 June, 2000.
Mr. Nisar A Qureshi, Dy Manager, (PNO: 058106), Bulk Water Supply, PAKISTAN STEEL.
CHARGE-SHEET As a result of Special Audit on the affairs of Bulk Water Supply Department covering the period from 1981 to 30th June, 1999 conducted by Internal Audit Department, Pakistan Steel, it has been revealed that you being a responsible officer failed to safe-guard the interest of Pakistan Steel and failed to safe-guard the interest of Pakistan Steel and failed to claim water charges from M/s. Omer Jibran on account of by-pass connection with mala fide intention and with the sole purpose to obtain wrongful gains for yourself causing an estimated loss of Rs. 26,42)008/- to Pakistan Steel.
2. Your above acts of fraud/dishonesty misappropriation, breach of trust and dereliction of duty besides being subversive of discipline amount to misconduct under Pakistan Steel Officers' Service Rules and Regulations.
5..................................
Sd/- (HAMID PERVAIZ)
Incharge (A & P)"
The Appellant replied all the charge-sheets, but his replies did not evoke any favourable response from the Respondents, who, after holding departmental inquiry against the Appellant in all the three cases, imposed penalties upon the Appellant, as already mentioned above; hence, these appeals, praying to setaside the impugned orders and to restore the Appellant in the position, which he had been enjoying be :ore imposing the above penalties.
4. The Respondents filed their written comments in all the three appeals, justifying the penalties imposed upon the Appellant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
6. Pointing out the discrepancies in the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant in all three cases/appeals to the effect that the inquiries in these cases were defective as the complainant was not examined; that all relevant witnesses were not examined; that cross- examination of the prosecutor, examined by the Respondents, was not allowed; that copy of inquiry report not supplied and the opportunity of personal hearing was not provided to the Appellant. The learned Counsel for the Appellant strongly took the initial preliminary legal objection to the effect that sine; the disciplinary proceedings in all the three cases/appeals had been taken by the Respondents under the Pakistan Steel Officer's Service Rules, the entire proceedings had been vitiated to the extent that these were null and void, for the reason that at the the when the disciplinary proceedings in all the three cases/appeals had been initiated against the Appellant, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had already been promulgated, which Ordinance, as per its Sections 11 and 12 had' an over-riding effect on the other existing laws dealing with the disciplinary proceedings against an employee. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, urged that illegal orders of the Respondents be set aside and the appeals be remanded to the Respondents for de novo proceedings under the relevant law i.e. Under Removal from Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000.
7. The learned Counsel for the Respondents initially took some legal objections about the limitation and maintainability of the appeals any tried to repel the objections of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, but he did not dispute the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant regarding the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant, having not been taken under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and instead of that these were taken under the Pakistan Steel Officer's Service Rules.
8. Needless to say that at the the when disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant had been initiated the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was in force and it over-rode all other laws dealing with disciplinary proceedings under its sections 11 and 12, which are reproduced as under:-
11. Ordinance to override other laws.-- The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973), and the rules made thereunder? And any other law for the being in force.
12. Proceedings under this Ordinance.- All proceedings initiated on the commencement of this Ordinance in respect of matters and persons in service provided for in this Ordinance shall be governed by the provisions of this Ordinance and rules made thereunder.
[Provided that the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt any class or classes of employees of a corporation, a corporate body, authority, statutory body, or other organization or institution set up established, owned, managed or controlled by it or a body or organization in which it has a controlling share or interest from the provisions of this Ordinance and such class or classes of employees shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, be proceeded against and dealt with under the laws and rules applicable to such employees before the commencement of the Ordinance."] It has not been shown to us by the learned Counsel for the Respondents if the Respondents- Pakistan Steel comes within the proviso of Section-12.
9. Since the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant had not been taken in all the three cases/appeals under the prevalent Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and had been wrongly/illegally taken under the Pakistan Steel Officer's Service Rules & Regulations, the same stood vitiated being null and void. Reliance is placed on PLJ 2003 SC 311, 2003 PLC (CS) 600 and 2004 SBLR 199. Illegal departure from following the prevalent law of the land and mis- application of law had definitely caused prejudice to the Appellant in defending himself.
10. We, therefore, accepting the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, set aside the impugned orders of the punishments awarded to the Appellant and remand the three appeals to the Respondent-Pakistan Steel (which should have been properly sued through its Chairman) for de novo proceedings against the Appellant strictly in accordance with the prevalent law i.e. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Such proceedings shall be initiated and completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
11. 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.