QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SADDIQUI, MEMBER.- While serving as Sub-Inspector in Pakistan Railways Police, the Appellant was removed from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 vide order dated 1.5.2002. His departmental appeal dated 9.5.2002 was not replied to within the statutory period; hence, he filed this appeal on 13.7.2002, praying to set- aside the impugned order of his removal from service and to reinstate him in service as spent on duty.
2. A show-cause notice dated 7.12.2001 was issued to the Appellant containing the following allegations:-- "(i) Censured four times in 1976, 1980, 1983 & 1998 and as such you are guilty of misconduct.
(ii) Average ACR for the year 1996 (Part-1), 1997, 1998, 1999 & 2000 and as such you have ceased to be efficient.
(iii) That you do not enjoy a good reputation and as such you may reasonably be considered as highly corrupt."
3. The Appellant replied the show-cause notice denying the allegations against him but without holding any inquiry against him, he was removed from service, as mentioned above.
4. The respondents filed the written comments.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, at the very outset, stated that the case of present Appellant was exactly identical to the case of Khadim Hussain vs. Inspector General, Pakistan Railway Police & others decided by this tribunal Vide judgment dated 17.6.2004 in Appeal No. 307(K)
(CS)/2002 whereby the appeal of Khadim Hussain was allowed, directing the Respondents to reinstate him in service treating the intervening period as leave of any kind due to him. The learned counsel urged that in view of the precedent case, the Appellant is also entitled to be reinstated in service like that of Khadim Hussain.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant reiterated his arguments, submitted ..By him in the case of Khadim -Hussain; that no reasons were recorded for dispensing with the regular inquiry against the Appellant. He cited 1980 SCM R 850 and 1997 TD (Service) 346; that in view of denial of serious allegations against him by the Appellant, the Respondents were required to hold regular inquiry against the Appellant, but that was not done; hence, the impugned order was illegal. He cited PLJ 2004 SC 353 and PLJ 1997 SC 1393; that no second punishment could be imposed upon the Appellant on the basis of past penalties. He cited 1989 .SCMR 1224 and 1995 PLC(CS) 666;. That last minor punishment of censure was awarded to the Appellant in 1998, which alongwith previous minor punishments stood waived of hence, subsequent punishment on the basis thereof was illegal. He. Relied on Rule 18(2) of the Pakistan Railway Police Rules, 1980 and page No. 769 of Personal Manual Vol-I Railways; that the average ACRs had never been communicated to the Appellant, as such these ACRs were to be treated as good ACRs and no punishment could' be based on such ACRs. He cited PLD 1992 SC 1144; PLD 1995 SC 556 and 2000 TD(Service) 374.
8. In rebuttal of the arguments of learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Respondents Stated that minor punishment awarded to the Appellant together with average ACRs proved the inefficiency of the Appellant and for the same reason the could be deemed not to have good reputation and, therefore, reasonably considered to be highly corrupt.
9. We have carefully considered the above arguments of both sides and perused the authorities, cited at the bar as also the judgment of this Tribunal, referred to by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
10. We have no hesitation in saying that the said judgment, mutatis mutandis, applies to the case of present Appellant also. The authorities, cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant also support his contentions that on the basis of minor punishments and average ACRs, the Appellant could not be considered to be inefficient. Further that without holding any regular inquiry, which was absolutely necessary, in view of the denial of allegations by the Appellant and, without any evidence of corruption the Appellant. Could not be termed to have not been enjoying good reputation or reasonably be considered as highly corrupt. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, supported by the authorities, make out a case of exoneration of the Appellant from the allegations Revelled against him. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the Respondents have not been able to dislodge the case of the Appellant and such arguments have not impressed us.
11. We, therefore, relying on the authorities, cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and, also the judgment of this Tribunal, referred to above, allow the appeal, set-aside the impugned order of the removal of the Appellant from service and direct the respondents to reinstate him in service from the date of his removal from service. The intervening period since the date of his removal till the date of his reinstatement be treated as leave of any kind due to him. No order as to costs.
12. Copies of the Judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rule-21 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.