RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBER.- Appellant Muhammad Hanif while serving as Assistant Manager, PSPS Department in Pakistan Steel was removed from service vide Order dated 5/11/2002 by Respondent No.2 against which he filed departmental appeal to Respondent No.1 on 14/11/2002 which was rejected vide Order dated 22/11/2002, hence he filed the present Appeal on 04/12/2002 praying as under:
(a) To set aside the order of removal form service dated 5/11/2002 passed by Respondent No.2 and as well order of rejection dated 22.11.2002 passed by the Respondent No.1.
(b) To re-instate the appellant into service with all consequential benefits.
(c) Costs of the appeal.
(d) Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper and fit under the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the present case are that Appellant joined Pakistan Steel as Store man with effect from 29.4.1976, ASK w.e.f. 30.4.1978, Storekeeper w.e.f/ 1/5/1980, Junior Officer w.e.f. 2/5/1983 and finally the. Appellant was promoted as Assistant Manager with effect from 3/5/1986. According to him, he had unblemished record of service and no minor or major punishment was ever awarded to him and his services were appreciated on many occasions by his superiors. Vide Order dated 31/5/2002 while the Appellant was posted as Assistant Manager (PSPS) department of Pakistan Steel was placed under suspension by Respondent No.5 and he was issued the against any one. He urged that the same treatment be given to the Appellant as like that of Ziauddin because the case of the Appellant cannot be distinguished from Ziauddin.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the Enquiry Officer though the Appellant not guiIty, yet on vetting it appeared that found the Inquiry Report contained technical flaws on the basis of which the de-novo enquiry was ordered by the competent authority. He contended that the Appellant was custody officer of the material lying at Gate No.9 as well as at gate No.4. He contended that the -Appellant was present on duty on 17/5/2002, therefore, he was responsible for correct loading which he did not ensure.4. We have carefully considered the arguments of both sides.A-5. As per record the scrapped iron was to be loaded in the Truck for certain party but instead of that costly material was loaded which was detected at the gate. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Appellant was not present at the time when the Truck was being loaded because he had the duties to supervise two places. He pointed out that in the earlier enquiry his contention was accepted and he was exonerated but in the second enquiry there is nothing on record if the Appellant was present at the time of loading or not. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant prayed that the pitiable case of the Appellant required sympathetic consideration by reinstating the Appellant in service, modifying of his punishment. He placed on record photo copies of the order dated 13.11.2002 whereby Muhammad Ziauddin, Junior Officer of PSPS Department was removed from service, but subsequently, his punishment was modified to one stage lower in pay grade. He prayed for same treatment as like that of Ziauddin because the case of the Appellant cannot be distinguished from Ziauddin.6. We, therefore, accept the appeal , set-aside the impugned order of removal of the Appellant and modify the penaIty of removal service to his reduction from Assistant Manager to one stage lower in Pay Scale for a period of two years. He shall be reinstated in service from the date of his removal with all back benefits in accordance with reduced Pay Scale, but that shall be for the period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, for which he shall submit an affidavit before the competent authority.No Orders as to costs.7. Copies of Judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover under rule 21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.Order Accordingly.