' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.---Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of his dismissal from service dated 16-5-1997 and not responded to his departmental appeal dated 29-5-1997, the Appellant herein preferred this appeal on 20-9-1997 before the Tribunal under section-4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 for setting aside the impugned order of his dismissal and for reinstating him in service with all back-benefits.
2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly, are that the Appellant was appointed as Storeman Grade-II in the respondent-Corporation. Later on in consideration of his meritorious services, he was promoted as Junior Storeman. He was transferred to Bin Qasim Power Station as Assistant Store Keeper and then on 24-3-1994, he was transferred on loan basis of. Meter Store Section as Incharge. As per the appellant, he unearthed the nefarious activities of certain officials of the Respondent-Corporation. Such persons turned hostile towards him. As a result of which he was issued a departmental memo. By the Chief Engineer (Meters) on 10-2-1996. He replied such memo.
But he was shocked to receive a charge-sheet dated 18-2-1996, which is reproduced as under:-- ' Date: 18-2-1996 ' Ref: EE(M)/F-5.04/96/775. CHARGE-SHEET.
' It has been reported that the following acts prejudicial to good conduct and subversive to discipline have been committed by you.
' That you have unauthorizedly taken in hand the job of replacement of 198 burnt meters of Mustafa Market, North Nazimabad, near Hydari Market, Karachi. This being a case .Of fire is primarily to be dealt through the office of Electric Inspector, Government of Sindh, Karachi Region in accordance with the rules in this regard. The XEN (M&C) North Nazimabad, occupants of shops and flats of above market and a licensed wiring contractor, have stated in their written statements that you brought 65 new meters and dumped there in the said market. You also further did remove all burnt meters and kept them in the same building and negotiated with them to replace with new meters.
In your earlier reply you had stated that these new meters were issued to M&C Fed. II but they have denied all this.
' The above acts committed by you amount to misconduct under section 14(b),(c) and (m) of the KESC Limited rules and conditions of service and renders you liable to disciplinary action.
' With the approval of the competent authority you are hereby chare-sheeted to explain within three days of the receipt of the charge-sheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the atore-said.Misconducts.
' The Karachi Electric Supply Corp.
' (Sd.)
' EXECUTIVE ENGINER ' (METERS)
' Asstt. Store Keeper, M.T.D."
' The appellant replied the charge-sheet, but a regular inquiry was ordered to be held against him, in consequence whereof he was dismissed from service ide impugned order dated 16-5-1997.
3. The grievance of appellant was that in spite of his unblemished and meritorious career, he was dismissed from service even after his order of promotion dated 15-4-1997, which was subsequent to the memorandum dated 10-2-1996 and charge-sheet 18-2-1996. He stated that the charges against him were false and baseless and he was dismissed from service without issuing him a final show-cause notice and giving him a chance of personal hearing.
4. Written, comments were filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the action of respondent was justified.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the finding of the inquiry officer.
The inquiry officer has given go-bye to the appellant so far as illegal gratification was concerned.
As to the other charge of issuing the meters illegally, the finding of the inquiry officer was that the same had been partly proved. During the arguments of the learned Advocates for parties, it transpired that yellow page No.13813 was the crucial document against which the meters had been issued. The case diary shows that the Advocate for the respondents had informed the earlier Bench that the Department was prepared to supply the Photostat copy of the said requisite slip (yellow page No.13813), After perusal of the record we also come to the conclusion that the yellow page 13813 was the crucial document against which meters were issued; hence, the learned counsel for the respondents was again directed to file/produce the yellow page, but it appears from the record that the said .Page was not filed/produced. We sought explanation of the learned counsel for the respondents about non-production and non filing of such yellow page. He stated that the same could not be filed/produced for the reasons that the appellant during the inquiry proceedings admitted that he had retained the yellow page with other leaves. We find that two photocopies of the same page have been filed before this Tribunal. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that one of the two copies is a tampered document and it was tampered on the basis of the original page by the appellant. He pointed out the difference between two photocopies of the said page, but for us, the disturbing thing is that both the photocopies have not come from the side of appellant. The same have been filed by the respondents. We asked the respondent how the respondent had filed two different copies of the yellow page, the learned counsel for the respondent relied that the tampered document/copy as well as other copy both have been supplied to the respondent by the appellant after about 1-1/2 years of the filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that these copies had not been supplied by the Appellant to the respondent. The Advocates for the parties appear to have created confusion about the yellow page. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that ignoring the matter of tempering or otherwise of the yellow page the matter be decided on other evidence available on record. The learned counsel for the appellant suggested that further inquiry be held into the matter of production/filing of the yellow page and the two Photostat copies thereof. The learned counsel for the respondents did not agree to such proposal on 7-7-2004, but subsequently on 4-12-2004 he agreed to such proposal.
7. We have carefully considered the entire matter. In our opinion the yellow page in question is a crucial document for determination of the guilt or otherwise of the appellant about issuing the meters, as alleged by the respondents. To resolve such controversy, we remand the case to the respondents for de novo disciplinary inquiry in the matter with special reference to the controversy about the yellow page No.13813. We accordingly, allow the appeal, setaside the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant from service and order his reinstatement in service from the date of his dismissal. The inquiry be initiated and completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The question of back-benefits for the period the appellant was not gainfully employed, would depend upon the result of de novo proceedings, which be conducted strictly in accordance with law. The appellant shall be given full opportunity to defend himself. The issued of second show-cause notice and giving chance of personal hearing are very material ingredients of any disciplinary proceedings, which have to be kept in mind by the authorities initiating disciplinary proceedings against delinquent employee.
8. No order as to costs.
9. Announced in open Court.
10. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters as per rule-21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rule 1974.