JUDGMENT QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER- - The appellant had been serving as Relieving Commentate Clerk in the Pakistan Railways, since 1990. He was removed from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 vide order dated 1.10.2002 against which he preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected, hence, he filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 12.3.2003 praying to set aside the impugned order of his removal from service and to reinstate him in service with all back benefits.
2. The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had been initiated on the basis of show- cause notice in July, 2002 alongwith statement of charges containing the following charges:-- "(a) While working at Karachi Cantt. Station on 20.5.2002, you issued three ticket Nos. 77458, 59 and 60 Ex.KC to BWP R to Mr. M. Rafique S/o M. Ramazan holding N.I.C. No. 347-059972 and charged Rs. T 0.00 extra per ticket from him. The matter was detected by Vigilance staff and also witnessed by Station Manager, Karachi Cantt."
In the above-mentioned show-cause notice regular departmental inquiry was dispensed with and only on the basis of reply to the show-cause notice of the appellant, he was removed from service vide impugned order dated 1.10.2002 without any personal hearing.
3. Written comments were filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the appellant was asserted to be justified.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Serious allegations of fact had been levelled against the appellant which needed to be inquired into through a regular departmental inquiry but the competent authority did not consider such fact and arbitrarily dispensed with the regular departmental inquiry, It has been held in a number of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that major penalty could not be imposed upon an accused official in case serious allegation of facts are denied by him without any regular departmental inquiry, providing him full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and put up his defence, but that has not been done in the case of the appellant, thus, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had been vitiated. Reliance is placed on SBLR 2004 Tribunal 10; NLR 2003 Service 1, PLJ 2004 TRC (Service) 1, 1986 PLC (CS) 894 and SBLR 2004 Tribunal 174. In addition to what has been stated above, the appellant was also condemned unheard as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to him, which was absolutely necessary in case of any adverse order passed against an employee. Reliance is placed on 1986 PLC (CS) 419 and PLD 2004 SC 441.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the competent authority was empowered to dispense with the regular inquiry in his wisdom considering the facts of the case. According to him, the serious allegation of facts levelled against the appellant necessitated imposition of major penalty upon him, which had rightly been imposed by the competent authority.
7. In- view of the authorities, referred to above, regular departmental inquiry was absolutely necessary in this case to establish the serious allegation of facts, but in the absence of such inquiry and for want of opportunity of personal hearing, we hold that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were illegal and could not be sustained. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of removal of the appellant from service and direct the respondents hold de novo disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the same charges providing him full opportunity to defend himself, as also providing him an opportunity of personal hearing. The disciplinary proceedings be initiated and completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the appellant shall be entitled to the back benefits for the period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. The back benefits will depend upon the result of the inquiry.
8. Announced in open Court.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Copies of the judgment be sent to he parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rule 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.