Rashid Ali Mirza, Member.--The Appellant who had been serving as JCA(B) in the Pakistan Railways was removed from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 vide order dated 21.9.2002 against which he preferred a departmental appeal which remained un- replied; hence, he filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 3.12.2002, praying to set aside the impugned order of his removal from service and to reinstate him in service with all back benefits.
2. The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had been initiated on the basis of show- cause notice dated July 8, 2002 alongwith statement of charges containing the following charges:- -
(a) During checking of Railway Station, Karachi Cantt. at 13:00 hours on 31.5.2002, it was observed that a sum of Rs, 1,08,880.00 was short from running cash of CS-(B) Mr. Muhammad Siddique.
(b) You in connivance with the CS (B) Mr. Muhammad Siddique deposited short amount of Rs, 255/-.
(c) You have also been awarded the following punishment:
(i) Reduction in time scale by one step for one year on 29.9.2001.
In the above-mentioned show-cause notice regular departmental inquiry was dispensed with and only on the basis of reply to the show-cause notice of the Appellant, he was removed from service vide impugned order dated 21.9.2002 without any personal hearing.
3. Written comments were filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the appellant was asserted to be justified.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as D.R. and perused the record.
5. Serious allegations of fact had been levelled against the appellant which needed to be inquired into through a regular departmental inquiry but the competent authority did not consider such fact and arbitrarily dispensed with the regular departmental inquiry. It has been held in a number of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that major penalty could not be imposed upon an accused official (in case serious allegations of facts are denied by him) without any regular departmental inquiry, providing him full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and put up his defence, but that has not been done in the case of the appellant, thus, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had been vitiated. Reliance is placed on SBLR 2004 Tribunal 10, NLR 2003 Service 1, PLJ 2004 Tr.C. (Service) 1, 1986 PLC (CS) 894 and SBLR 2004 Tribunal 174. In addition to what has been stated above, the appellant was also condemned unheard as no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to him, which was absolutely necessary in case of any adverse order passed against an employee. Reliance is placed on 1986 PLC (CS) 419 and PLD 2004 SC 441.
6. The D.R. argued that the competent authority was empowered to dispense with the regular inquiry in his wisdom considering the facts of the case. According to him, the serious allegation of facts levelled against the appellant necessitated imposition of major penalty upon him, which had rightly been imposed by the competent authority.
7. In view of the authorities, referred to above, regular departmental inquiry was absolutely necessary in this case to establish the serious allegation of facts; but in the absence of such inquiry and for want of opportunity of personal hearing, we hold that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were illegal and could not be sustained. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the impugned order of removal of the appellant from service and direct the respondents to hold denovo disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the same charges providing him full 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. The back benefits will depend upon the result of the inquiry.
8. No order as to costs.
9. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties (under registered cover) and to the relevant quarters under Rule 21 of Service Tribunal.