' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, (MEMBER).---Appellant who was Senior Commercial Assistant Booking in the Pakistan Railways Cantt. Division Karachi was issued a show-cause notice dated May 22, 2002 for misconduct and breech of discipline for which major penalty of dismissal was proposed. As per Statement of Allegations the appellant had committed the following acts of misconduct and inefficiency: ' STATEMENT OF CHARGES
1. Whereas you Mr. Shah Nawaz, SCA (B), Karachi Cantt. Are charged with misconduct, inefficiency and corruption for the following charges and other relevant circumstances:
(a) One passenger Mr. Miskeen Hussain complained to ATO-1, Karachi, who was on Magisterial check from Karachi Cantt. To Hyderabad by 103-Up dated 9-5-1996, that you charged Rs.285.00 instead of legitimate fare of Rs.225.00. On economy class Ticket No. 027776 for Rawalpindi as such realized Rs.30.00 in excess from the passenger with ulterior motive.
(b) You have also been awarded the following punishments: ' WIP one year on 2-9-1976 (waived off) WIT six months on 12.1977 (cancelled)
' WIP two years on-4-1978 (reduced to WIT one year)
' WIT one year on 7-4-1981 (reduced to censure)
' WIT one year on 4-2-1982.
' WIT two years on 7-3-1990 (waived off)
' WIT three years on 19-10-1991 ' WIT three years on 21-9-1993 ' WIT three years on 25-10-1994 ' The above punishments clearly show that you have ceased to be efficient.
(c) You were found involved in short remittance of cash 11 times, thus you violated rule 5.7 Chapter- V of Commercial Manual.
(d) It has been reported that you enjoy bad reputation.
2. You are, therefore, proceeded under Removal from service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000- 2001.
' The Appellant submitted his reply dated 28-5-2002 to the show-cause notice against him wherein he stated that no complaint was lodged against him for excess charging of Rs.30 and that the minor punishment enumerated in the Statement of Allegations had already lost, their force under rule 5.7 Chapter-V of Commercial Manual the respondents such minor punishments stood waived off.
2. The reply of the appellant did not find favour with the respondents-Authorities and they imposed the major penalty 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 the appeal before this Tribunal.
4. The respondents filed the departmental comments wherein they stated that the appellant was punished under the said Ordinance by observing necessary legal procedure. As to the excess charging of Rs.30 by the appellant the respondents, admittedly, did not hold any enquiry and there was no complaint in that connection. Regarding the minor punishment, the respondents stated that the same can be used to support the allegations of misconduct against the appellant.
4-A. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
5. We find that a petty offence of charging excess Rs.30 from certain passenger for which the appellant was not even punished has now been used after six years to prove the charge of corruption against the appellant. This has seriously disturbed us to 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 time and, what prevented them to use such an old incident to prove the charge against the appellant which has no basis as no incident or event, if any, had taken place after the promulgation of Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 as had been cited in the charge-sheet. On the other hand, the minor punishments awarded to the appellant which had lost their force, the last punishment being, in the year 1994, has been used as corroboratory piece of evidence for the incident which had never taken place. The entire proceedings against the appellant are beyond our apprehension as to why the Railway department had to revive to past and closed events to dismiss its employee without resorting to proper procedure as proved under the said Ordinance and failed to hold any enquiry even in a case of major penalty. We are, therefore, not willing condone the illegal acts of the respondents. We therefore, allowed this appeal, set aside the impugned order 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.
' Copies be sent to the parties as per rules. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.