MOAZZAM HAYAT, MEMBER.-- Appellant Zulfiqar Ali Khan is aggrieved by order 4.9.2000 which is reproduced in verbatim as under:- PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED Office of General Manager (C) Region, PTA Building Abid Majeed Road,, Lahore Cantt.
No.GM/Dev/S-26-2/Checking of Record/11,11, dated at Lahore the 21st September, 2000.
Subject: DOGUS/FABRICATED DOCUMENTS On a reference from this office, it has been confirmed by Faisalabad Telecom Regional, a Recruiting Region, that you Zulfiqar Ali Khan son of Ghulam Ahmed Khan were never appointed as L.D.C.
Since you have never been appointed as L.D.C, by Faisalabad Telecom Region (Divisional Engineer (Phones) Peoples Colony, Faisalabad), as such you are not a bona fide employee of PTCL.
Since you obtained employment through bogus/fabricated documents, Development Central Region, reserves the right to:
(i) Recover all and any salary, allowances or other benefits paid to you.
(ii) Register cases against you with the competent authority for obtaining employment through fabricated, bogus and forged means." -Sd- ASSTT: GENERAL MANAGER (S&E)
Development (C) Region LAHORE To Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan son of Ghulam Ahmed khan C/o D.E.Dv-II FTR, Faisalabad
2. Against this order his department appeals dated 9.9.2000 and 14.9.2000 were rejected on 30.11.2000. it is prayed by him that impugned order dated 4.9.2000 and order of Departmental Appellate Authority dated 3.11.2000 be set aside and he be reinstated to service with back benefits.
3. On 19.2.2004 Mr. Umer Sharif, Advocate appeared for the respondents alongwith Raja Khurram, Assistance Director/Legal Adviser. Teh appeal was adjourned to 18.3.2004 Mr. Muhammad Sahrif, learned counsel for the respondents, requested for adornment for filing objections. The appeal was, therefore, adjourned to 13.5.2004. On 13.5.2004 no body appeared for the respondents. We passed the following order: "No body has appeared on behalf of respondents. On the last date of hearing Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Advocate was present for respondents. On. His request the appeal was adjourned for today.
The respondents were to file objections. No body has appeared, therefore, the case is adjourned to 16.9.2004 for final arguments. The respondents shall be informed that on the date fixed arguments shall be heard, in case objections are to be filed by them they may do so but objections must be filed at least a week before the date of hearing with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant:
4. On 24.7.2004 the Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal made a report that objections have not been filed by the respondents, therefore, notices be issued to the parties concerned as per direction issued by the Tribunal on 16.2.2003. Inspite of issuance of notices the respondents have not filed objections, in fact no body has appeared on their behalf today, therefore, we are constrained to pass an order ex parte proceedings against them.
5. We have scrutinized the record but we have not been able to lay our hand on the Wakalatnama of Mr. Umer Sharif and Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Advocates. Normally we would have adjourned the case directing the respondents to appear in Court to contest the appeal. But in the present case Raja Khurram, Assistant Director/Legal Advisor had appeared on behalf of respondents on 19.2.2004 alongwith Mr. Umer Sharif, Advocate. So even if Mr. Umer Sharif .Was not formally engaged a a counsel, the respondents were adequately represented by Raja Khurram, Assistant Director/Legal Advisor. After his appearance in Court on 19.2.2004 further notice to the respondents was not required . Notwithstanding this position, notices were, again issued to the respondents under our afore-mentioned order dated 13.5.2004. The respondents have not cared to file objections nor they have appeared to contest the appeal, in the circumstances we are contained to order ex parte proceedings against them.
6. There are plenty of documents on record to show that a formal appointment order had been issued in favour of appellant on 31.7.1991 and obedience to that order he had joined duty w.e.f.
1.8.1991 vide order dated 5.10.1992 the appellant was transferred from the office of Divisional Engineer, T/C Faisalabad to the office of Divisional Engineer (Dev/N-III PTC. His request for transfer to Faisalabad Region was acceded to by the Assistant General Manager (Dev) Central Region, Lahore vide order dated 20.8.1999. He was repatriated to the office of the General Manager, FTR, Faisalabad. On 14.10.1998 the Deputy General Manager FTR wrote a letter to the Deputy General Manager (Dev) Central Regional informing him that the appellant could not be accommodated due to nonavailability of vacant post of L.D.C. A telegraphic attachment order was passed by the Assistant General Manager (S&E), FTR, Faisalabad. Vide order dated 21.5.99 he was relieved from the office of Assistant' Engineer (Dev-II) so that he could report to the Assistant Director (Welfare) in the office of General Manager, FTR, Faisalabad. On 2.10.1999 Assistant General, Manager (S&E), FTR relieved the appellant from the Welfare Branch with a direction to him report to his parent Division i.e. D.E. Dev-II PTCL, Faisalabad, in addition to his duties the appellant was selected for IInd Inter Zone Cricket Chairmanship, 1999 and order in this regard was passed on 28.10.1999. it is also on record that appellant had been allowed annual increments and his pay fixed from the to the. The most important documents is order dated 30.9.1999 issued from the office of Divisional Engineer (Dev-II), PTCL, Faisalabad by which Selection Grade BPS-7 was granted to the appellant. AI seniority list of LDCs working in FTR was published on 17.5.2000. The appellant's name was entered in this list.
A service book in his favour was also prepared by the respondents. Thus other is overwhelming documentary evidence to show was transferred from the to the and was granted increments in addition to Selection Grade. All these documents entitled him to at least a show-cause notice before the impugned order was passed against him. We are of the view that the appellant was condemned unheard. Hel also have been given an opportunity to explain his status as a lawful employees of the respondents. Since the formalities were not observed by the respondents in issuing the show- cause notice to the appellant and granting him an opportunity to defend himself, therefore, were are constrained to hold that the principles of "natural justice" and "fair play" were violated by the respondents. The impugned order and the order of the Department Appellate Authority cannot maintained in the Departmental Appellate circumstances.
7. For the foregoing reasons we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant is reinstated into service in view of the documentary evidence. The respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal action against him. The issue of back benefits shall be dependent on the outcome of the said proceedings.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.