' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).---The appellants has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 challenging the impugned order dated 17-6-2002 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 18-6-2002 which met with a rejection order on 25-6-2002, hence this appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant joined Pakistan Steel as Junior Officer on 3-12-1989. He was terminated from service with effect from 11-11-1990 and subsequently on the recommendation of the review committee, he was reinstated in service without back- benefits vide letter dated 4-9-1994. On 1-2-2000 he was again terminated from service on "No longer required basis" along with other Officers which order was challenged before this Tribunal in Appeal No, 276(K)(CE)/2000 which was allowed vide judgment dated 3-3-2001 and the appellant was taken back on duty on 8-3-2001, but on his reinstatement Inquiry Committee was formed by Respondent No,1 who on 12-4-2001 issued Statement of Allegations and charges alleging therein that the appellant skillfully managed political pressure and got his application dated nil for employment in Pakistan Steel forwarded through Mrs. Nusrat Bhutto, Ex-Senior Minister as recorded by General Manager (A&p) Pakistan Steel. The appellant replied to the said Statement of Allegations and charges and rebutted all the allegations made therein. He stated that he had never approached Mrs. Nusrat Bhutto to secure employment in Pakistan Steel Mills nor he was appointed on her recommendation. He stated that he had secured employment in accordance with rules and regulations under the orders of the competent authority. On 25-5-2001 the appellant was issued show-cause notice wherein he was directed to submit his reply within 7 days. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice rebutting all the charges of political influence against him. On 17-6-2002 the appellant was removed from service vide Letter No,CPA/JO/RMHD/2002/PA/A-1247 issued by Respondent No,2. Being aggrieved with the order of removal from service he filed departmental appeal to Respondent No,1 on 18-6-2002 which was rejected and conveyed to the appellant on 25-6-2002 through respondent No,2. On receipt of copy of rejection order dated 25-6-2002 the appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal within next 30 days.
3. The Advocate for appellant argued that in the identical case of Appeal No,44 of Mr. Abdul Sami Khan A.M. (P.No,818844) Pakistan Steel and judgment passed in Appeal Nos.790, 794 and 796 of Dr. Chandar Kumar Sharma and others who were removed from service/awarded punishment. Of reduction to lower pay scale on extraneous ground by using political influence were reinstated in service with full back-benefit by this Tribunal.
4. The respondents have filed the Parawise Comments wherein they have supported the impugned order to be justified and have prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the Written Arguments filed on behalf of the respondents and also perused the record. The Advocate for respondents called absent but his Clerk was present who filed Written Arguments on his behalf. On perusal of the record, we have arrived at the conclusion that the impugned order is outcome of the personal vendatta of the respondent No,1 as there was no fresh cause of action for any disciplinary action against the appellant which was actually the reaction for and disciplinary action against the appellant of the respondent No,1 to the decision of the Tribunal dated 3-3-2001 for reinstatement of 128 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 wedding out of those officials who were inefficient, corrupt or where 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."
6. The appellant's 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 against 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 alleging therein that he had secured the employment as Junior Officer by using political influence and that his appointment was on extraneous grounds in violation of law and the removal of 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 has 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 has deliberately and dishonestly been alleged by respondents for using political pressure and the adverse order as pre-planned, was thus illegal and bad in law, therefore, the decision of the competent authority imposing penalty of removal on the appellant is illegal void ab initio. Accordingly we while allowing the appeal set aside the impugned order dated 17-6-2002 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.
7. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties (under registered ,cover) and to the relevant quarters under Rules 21 of Service Tribunal.