RASHID WAHMOOD ANSARI, MEMBER. The appellant joined the respondent-Department as Lineman on 15.3.1982 and remained posted at different places till his last posting as Lineman in 2001 at Tharushah. On 12.6.2002 the appellant was placed under suspension and was issued a Letter of Explanation dated 24.6.2002 on the ground that during the visit of Superintending Engineer (Operation)/HESCO Nawab Shah on 12.6.2002 it was found out that the residents/Village Galipot were stealing electricity and the appellant had been receiving Rs. 30/- as Bhatta. The appellant on 29.6.2002 tendered his reply. On 10.7.2002 respondent No. 3 issued show-cause notice to the appellant to which he tendered his reply on 12.7.2002 and rebutted the charges. The respondent No. 3 removed the appellant from service on 18.7.2002 under Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 as amended, in response to an appeal of the appellant to respondent No. 2, the latter modified the punishment of Removal from Service to that of compulsory retirement from service vide Memorandum dated 16.12.2002. The appellant submitted his revision petition dated 24.12.2002 to respondent No. 1 for setting aside the order of respondent No. 2 but respondent No. 1 rejected the same vide Memorandum dated 18.9.2003 the appellant submitted the instant appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 4.10.2003.
2. The appellant contended that no regular inquiry was ever concluded by the respondents; nor was any personal hearing given to the appellant. He also contended that the impugned order dated 18.7.202, modification order dated 16.12.2002 and rejection order are 18.9.2003 are nonspeaking orders. The appellant also maintained that a major punishment cannot be imposed without regular inquiry, nor can it be modified without further inquiry or Show-cause Notice.
3. During the hearing of the case the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1978 were illegal ab-initio, null and void as. In view of the promulgation of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, disciplinary proceedings had to be initiated under the said Ordinance and not under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978. He contended that the proceedings under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 violated provisions of Sections 3 & 5 of the said Ordinance.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant the entire action taken by the respondents was illegal in view of the rulings in 2005 TD (Service) 140 and KLR Labour and Services Cases 88.
4. It is obvious that this is a case of misapplication of law. We therefore, without going into the merits of the case remand it to the respondents for de-novo proceedings against the appellant strictly in accordance with the relevant law on the basis of same allegations as contained in the Letter of Explanation dated 24.6.2002. Such proceedings be initiated and completed within four months. Consequently the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside, in the meantime the appellant shall be reinstated in service but the question of payment of back benefits shall depend upon the outcome of do novo proceedings.
5. No order as to costs.
6. Parties be informed accordingly.