' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER)---The Appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 challenging the impugned order dated 25-11-2002 whereby he was removed from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 against which he filed departmental appeal to the Chairman Pakistan Steel on 26-11-2002 which met with a rejection on 9-12-2002 received by the appellant on 10-1-2003, hence this appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant joined Pakistan Steel as Junior Officer on 15-5-1989. He on the basis of misinterpretation of the directive of National Security Council (NSC)/Cabinet conveyed to the respondent by Ministry of Industries and Production vide No,2(1) 98-CII Vol-II, dated 19th January, 2000 (sic). He was terminated from service with effect from 1-2-2000 on "No longer required basis" along with 436 Officers with one stroke of pen by respondent No, 1.
3. The case of appellant Mr. Abdul Sami Khan in Appeal No,44(K) (CE)/2002 who had joined Pakistan Steel as Assistant Manager on 13-9-1989 is that the appellant on the basis of mis- interpretation of the directives of National Security Council (NSC), Cabinet conveyed to the Respondents by Ministry of Industries and Production vide No,2(1)98- CII Vol-II dated 19th January, 2000 the appellant was terminated from service with effect form 1-2-2000 on "No longer required basis" along with 436 Officers with one stroke of pen by respondent No,
1. The Chief Executive, Government of Pakistan had intervened and directed the respondent No,1 for reinstatement of the terminated Officers including the appellant. The respondent No,1 had constituted a Review Committee who recommended for reinstatement of all the terminated Officers including the appellant but the respondent No,1 ignored the recommendation of the Review Committee. The appellant had invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and vide Service Appeal No,242(K)(CE)/2000 the Tribunal set aside the termination order dated 1st February, 2000, thereby reinstating the appellant with full back-benefits. The Respondents filed appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which was rejected on 26-6-2004. Before this rejection the respondent No,1 removed him from service on 25-11-2002. The appellant reinstated by Federal Service Tribunal was charge-sheeted for allegedly using political pressure/ extraneous ground for his appointment which was denied by the Appellant. The Enquiry Committee had held the appellant guilty of the charges and a show-cause Notice was issued to him by Respondent No,2 which was replied and finally the appellant was awarded major penalty of removal from service vide impugned order No,A&P/J0/816647) /2002/PA/2896 dated 25-11-2002.
4. The Advocate for appellant produced ample proof of Mr. Gada Hussain, Assistant Manager (P.
No,818054) Pakistan Steel and others who were terminated along with appellant on 1st February, 2000 (on No Longer required Basis) after assuming the duties they were also charge-sheeted and were found guilty and awarded major penalty but Mr. Gada Hussain and others who were also working in Pakistan Steel and the appellant himself were removed from service. Advocate for the appellant argued that in the identical case of Appeal Nos.44 of Mr. Abdul Sami Khan A.M. (P.
No,818844) Pakistan Steel and judgment passed in Appeals No,790 to 794 and 796 of Dr. Chander Kumar Sharma and others who were removed from service/awarded punishment of reduction to lower pay scale on extraneous grounds by using political influence and were also reinstated with full back-benefits by this Tribunal.
5. The respondents have filed the parawise comments stating therein the services of the appellant were terminated on 1st February 2000 "no longer required basis". The appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and he was reinstated in service along with other Officers with all back- benefits. The respondents stated that the appellant was served with Statement of Allegations on charges dated 16-10-2002, wherein it was contended that he in violation of law secured employment in answering Respondents' Corporation on extraneous grounds by using political influence and charge was admitted by the appellant and an enquiry was conducted wherein the allegation against the appellant was found correct. He replied the same and was further provided opportunity of personal hearing but he failed to defend his position, hence he was awarded major penalty of removal from service. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the Appeal with cost.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Appellant and have also gone through the written arguments filed by Miss Noushaba Haque Solangi Advocate for the appellant and also perused the record. The Advocate for appellant called absent. However the comments have been filed by the Respondents. On perusal of the record, we have arrived at the conclusion that the impugned order is out come of the personal vendetta of the Respondent No,1 as there was no fresh cause of action for any disciplinary action against the appellant which was actually the re-action for any disciplinary action against the appellant of the respondent No,1 to the decision of the Tribunal dated B 13-9-2002 for reinstatement of 4 of officers including the appellant. The Appellant at first instance was victimized on "no longer required basis" as a result of mis-interpretation of the NSC/Cabinet decision which is evident from the recommendations of the Review Committee which reads as under:-- "NSC/Cabinet decided that the process of weeding out of those officials who were inefficient, corrupt or were appointed on political grounds should be completed by 31st January, 2000, such officials should be removed from their present positions or suspended from service and inquires initiated against them, Provincial Governments should also take similar action."
7. The appellants appointment was based on the recommendations of the Selection/Interviewing Committee comprising of Senior Officers of the respondents whose recommendations were approved by the competent authority. Moreover, no proof for using political pressure by the Appellant could be produced by the prosecution side in support of its claim.. The allegation of misconduct again the appellant has not been proved and the report of Enquiry Officer/Committee is fallacious, arbitrary and it was not based on any evidence to prove that the Appellant's appointment was due to political influence. It is also surprising that after 12 years of the joining the appellant was issued statement of allegations and charges alleged therein that the appellant had secured the employments as Junior Officer by using political influence and that his appointment was on extraneous grounds in violation of law and the removal of 436 Officers terminated on 1st February, 2000 had admitted that in the past, inductions were made on the recommendations of the Ministries, MOIP and political personalities. Whereas those Officers who had joined Pakistan Steel prior to 1st January, 1985 were not charge-sheeted. Similarly, no staff/worker was appointed nor his application having been recommended for appointment by any Minister was proceeded against. This is sufficient to conclude that the appellant was subjected to discrimination. The appellant had successfully completed his probation and his appointment was disputed after more than decade, which is not legally tenable. It is clear from the above mentioned, facts that the appellant had deliberately and dishonestly been alleged by respondents for using political pressure and the adverse orders was pre-planned, thus illegal and bad in law, therefore, the decision of the competent authority imposing on the appellant is illegal void ab initio. Accordingly we while allowing the appeal set aside the impugned order dated 25-11-2002 and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service with all back-benefits from the period he was not gainfully employed, for which he shall furnish an affidavit to the competent authority with documentary proof of his earnings or otherwise during the intervening period and the said authority will determine the amount of back-benefits on the basis thereof. No order as to costs.
8. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties (under registered cover) and to the relevant quarters under rule 21 of Service Tribunal.