QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER. -- Advocates for the parties are present. We have heard both of them and perused the record of the case.
2. The Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was promulgated on 27.5.2000.
Under Section 11 of the said Ordinance, all disciplinary proceedings against civil servants have to be taken under the said Ordinance, which over-rides all the laws dealing with the disciplinary against the civil servants. The said section is reproduced as under:- "11. Ordinance to override other laws. -- The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXX1 of 1973) and the rules made thereunder and any other law for time being in force."
3. The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, who had been serving with the respondent- Karachi Electric Supply Corporation or about 15 years as Assistant Executive Engineer, was initiated vide charge sheet dated 24.11.2001 under KESC Officers Disciplinary Rules and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the appellant under the said Rules.
4. Since disciplinary proceedings against the' appellant had been initiated and he was punished not in accordance with the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, which was the prevalent law in force at that time, entire disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were, ab initio and nullity in the eyes of law, due to mis-application of law.
5. It is not the case of the respondent-KESC that they were exempted from the operation of law; hence, they could not apply their own Rules for disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents was not able to rebut the above legal position. He strenuously argued that charge sheet was issued, regular inquiry was held against the appellant, show-cause notice was also issued to him and after giving him a chance of personal hearing, the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the appellant.
6. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The position of law is very clear, as mentioned above and it is supported by the authorities i.e. 2003 PLC (CS) 600 and PLJ 2003 SC 511, NLR 2003 Service-1, 2002 SCMR 57, 2003 PLC (CS) 395 and 514, 1993 SCMR 1440, 1996 SCMR 802, 2002 PLC
(CS) 857, 2001 TD Service 361 and KLR 2006 SC 38. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable in view of the authorities, cited above.
7. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant from service and direct the respondents to 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. No order as to costs.
9. Announced in open Court.
10. 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.