' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).---While the appellant was serving the Respondent's Pakistan Steel, as Assistant Manager, he was removed from service vide order, dated 15-2-2002. He preferred a departmental appeal against his removal on 28-2-2002, which was rejected vide order, dated 11-3- 2002 whereafter he filed this appeal on 16-3-2002 under section 4 read with section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act of 1973, praying to set aside the impugned order, dated 15-2-2002 of his removal, order of rejection of his departmental appeal, dated 11-3-2002 and to reinstate him in service with full back-benefits.
2. Vide order, dated 13-1-2000, the appellant was suspended and a charge-sheet, dated 17-1-2000, containing followings allegations for which his explanation was called:-- "As a result of Special Audit on the affairs of First Civil Maint Department covering for the period from January, 1996 to December, 1996, conducted by Internal Audit Department, Pakistan Steel, it has been revealed that you have committed following irregularities/deviations from the laid down procedure with mala fide intention to obtain wrongful gains for yourself and others causing financial loss of Pakistan Steel:-- that you were involved almost at all stages in the case of making arrangements of proper lighting system around 4 stores a building in Stores Group-1. The party from whom the material was shown to have been purchased is physically non-existent. The purchase was shown on very high price.
The quantity which was shown purchased was not confirmed by stores as indentor. Hence Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs,94,724.
' That in the case of installation of electrical items in Pakistan Steel Canteen's premises, you arranged quotations. Most of the items were available in stores but shown as purchased. The rates quoted in the quotations differ with the rates billed. The party from whom the items were shown purchased is physically nonexistent. In this case Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs,1,88,918.
' That in the case of repair/renovation of false ceiling and other works at Head Office Building, you remained involved almost at all stages. The parties from whom the purchase were shown made are physically non-existent. The so-called purchases were made on higher rates. The rates included labour charges whereas the work has been carried out departmentally. The quantity of tubes purchased is more than its actual installation on the job and availability of balance tubes is not known. The officials to whom the said items were stated to have been issued have denied their receipt. No SOP was followed for purchases in question. Pakistan Steel was made to suffer a loss of Rs,2,35,236 in this case.
' That in the case of procurement of electrical items for installation of additional distribution board in Head Office, you remained involved almost at all stages. The party from whom the purchase was shown made is physically non-existent. The documentation for the so-called purchase was completed after one and half month's from the date of purchase. Fake, fictitious and bogus documents were arranged for this deal. Thus, there was a loss of Rs,93,370 to Pakistan Steel.
2. Your above acts of omission and commission amount to Misconduct as defined in Chapter VI of PSOSR&R.
3. You are hereby called upon to explain you conduct, in writing, within 7 days of the receipt of this Charge-Sheet as to why, disciplinary action should not be taken against you as per rules. It may also be indicated whether you desire to be heard in person.
(Sd.)
(Hamid Pervez)
Incharge (A&P)"
' The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet vide reply, dated 3-2-2000 and explained his position in detail. It appears that said reply of the appellant did not find favour with the respondents and he was removed from service vide order, dated 15-2-2002; hence, this appeal.
4. In the written comments, filed on behalf of the respondents penalty imposed upon the appellant was justified as the appellant was removed from service by competent authority on the basis of fair and impartial inquiry conducted by the inquiry committee after providing full opportunity to him in accordance with law. The misconduct alleged against the appellant was proved and he was found guilty of the same and the competent authority after hearing the appellant in person also approved the findings of the said committee.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, but the learned counsel for the respondents did not appear to argue the appeal, in spite of the fact that on the last date of hearing viz. 24-9-2005, he argued the matter partly and was directed to file the inquiry proceedings, but when the matter was fixed for arguments, he had sent the inquiry proceedings, but did not appear personally. We have also gone through the record written comments minutely.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that although the inquiry committee was appointed to conduct regular department inquiry, but the said committee did not conduct the inquiry as per the laid down procedure contained in letter, dated 30-11-1982 issued by the then Chairman according to which inquiry was to be conducted day by day, statement of the witnesses to be recorded in presence of the accused official, who was to be provided a chance to cross- examine the witnesses, copies of statements and documents produced were to be provided to the accused, but these requirements were not fulfilled; that complainant was not examined nor the report of the complainant was exhibited; hence, the entire inquiry was defective, therefore, on the basis of such defective inquiry, impugned order could not have been passed. He relied on 1984 PLC (C.S.) 560, 1985 PLC (C.S.) 518 and 576 and, 1987 PLC (C.S.)-741. He contended that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant, which was mandatory requirement of law and Rules 6.8 and 6.9 of the Pakistan Steel Officers Service Rules. He placed reliance on PLD 1981 SC 176, 1991 PLC (C.S.) 706 and 1992 PLC (C.S.) 678. He vehemently argued that the appellant had not committed any misconduct nor was he concerned with procurement of items at any stage, which fact the appellant had stated in his reply to the charge-sheet specifically, as such, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the acts of other causing loss to the Pakistan Steel. He argued that in order to award the punishment the procedure of inquiry mentioned in para 6.7 of the Rules and regulations were resorted whichwas shorter procedure of inquiry and entail minor punishment to proof of the charges, but the appellant, on the basis of such inquiry, was awarded the punishment of removal, which was a major penalty under para 6.5 (b)(iii), as such, the entire action was arbitrary, null and void. He relied on 2000 PLC (C.S.) 1252, 1999 PLC (C.S.) 592 and 2001; PLC (C.S.) 296. In view of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant, urged that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with back benefits.
7. In the written comments, it has been stated that charges of misconduct and misappropriation levelled against the appellant were proved and he was held responsible of having committed blatant irregularities and deviation from the laid down procedure with mala fide intention to obtain wrongful gain for himself and others causing huge financial losses to the Government control corporation; that removal order was passed after observing all the requirements of Service Rules and Regulations as well as law and after observing fair opportunity of hearing and right of defence to the appellant, hence, the appellant is estopped by conduct from objecting at this stage. He stated that the appeal be dismissed.
8. We have carefully considered the above arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, Agreeing with the learned counsel for the appellant, we find the inquiry committee did not conduct the inquiry as per procedure laid down in letter, dated 30-11-1982, issued by the then Chairman, Pakistan Steel and the procedure for departmental inquiry set down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1999 SCMR 819 was also not followed. That before awarding the punishment of removal upon the appellant copy of inquiry report was not supplied, which is against the principle of natural justice.
We also find that during the period from January, 1996 to December, 1996, the appellant was not connected with procurement of items at any stage and nature of duties of the appellant were different than as alleged in the charge-sheet, therefore the appellant cannot be held responsible for the acts of omission and commission of the others. It is quite surprising to note that during the audit inspection, appellant was not associated with to clarify the position of the particular field and subject in order to dispose of the quarries of the audit team, in view of detail reply of the appellant in reply to the charge-sheet explaining his position stating the procedure at every stage. The inquiry was conducted in question-answer form, which was not a legal inquiry as held by the apex Court in 1993 SCMR 1440. Witness namely Khizar Hayat, who was Store Incharge, had stated in clear words that the appellant had no concern with purchase, procurement of material or installation. He further stated that the material in question was issued by him and there was no misappropriation of funds and that the appellant had no connection regarding purchase. In view of the clear-cut evidence available on record, the appellant cannot be held responsible and could not have been punished. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses produced against before the inquiry committee, who did not even call the members of the Audit Team. Even report of the said team was not produced before the inquiry committee and in our view this has caused serious prejudice to the appellant.
9. For the above reasons, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. We direct the respondents to hold a formal inquiry against the appellant strictly in accordance with rules. Fresh order shall be passed by the competent authority after observing all the legal and codal formalities. The proceedings shall be expedited by the respondents. Meanwhile the appellant is reinstated into service but the payment of back-benefits shall depend on the outcome of the fresh proceedings.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters as per Rule 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974.