' MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR KIDWAI (MEMBER).---The appellant Sheerin Wali, Ex-Store Manager, IESCO, was dismissed from service vide order dated 14-4-2000. He preferred departmental appeal against the said order on 25-4-2000. As appellant didn't receive reply to his departmental appeal within the statutory period of 90 days, he filed the appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. The impugned order is reproduced below:- "ISLAMABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY Office of the Chief Executive, IESCO G-7/14, St. No, 40, Islamabad.
No, 2705-11/CE/IESCO/Inq.3459/2 Dated 14-04-2000.
Read:--
1. Letter of Explanation served upon Mr. Sharin Wali the then Store Manager, Rawalapandi (Now under suspension and attached with this office on 16-11-1999).
2. Defence reply to the Letter of Explanation received on 30-11-1999.
3. Personal hearing granted on 9-12-1999.
4. Show-cause notice served upon the accused Store Manager on 15-12-1999.
5. Defence reply to the show-cause notice received on 28-12-1999.
6. Personal hearing granted on 14-4-2000.
' After the consideration of the above mentioned documents and affording personal hearing, the undersigned in the capacity of Competent Authority under Pakistan WAPDA Employees E&D Rules, 1978 has decided to impose the Major Penalty of "Dismissal from service" upon Shirin Wali the Store Manager, Regional Store IESCO, Rawalpindi (Now under suspension and attached with this office) having been found guilty in the case.
(Sd.) 'Brigadier (Waseem Zafar Iqbal) Chief Executive Islamabad Electric Supply Company, Islamabad C.C.
1. The G.M. (Operation) WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore.
2. The Dy. General (Finance), Power, Napier Road, Lahore.
3. The Vice President Finance IESCO, Islamabad.
4. The Regional Director (EC) IESCO, Islamabad.
5. The Store Manager (E) Bakrarnandi, Rawalpindi.
6. Mr. Shirin Wali, the then Store Manager IESCO, Rawalpindi (now under suspension and attached with this office),
7. P.F./Master file."
' The appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer (B-17) in Pakistan WAPDA in 1976. During his service, he was promoted as senior Engineer (XEN)(B-18) in the year 1985 arid was given move- over to BPS-19 in the year 1990. On formation of regional distribution companies, the appellant was transferred as Store Manager, Regional Store, IESCO, Rawalpindi in November, 1999. While posted there he was served with a letter at explanation holding him responsible for various acts of omission and commission which established the fact that he was not performing his duties satisfactorily as a Store Manager resulting in discrepancy in proper maintenance of account of store material and stock account. The letter was issued to him under Rule-5(IV) of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978. The letter of explanation was based on the report of an inquiry wherein several instances of irregularities were mentioned. He was asked to explain within fourteen days of the receipt of explanation letter as to why one or more of the penalties as described in Rule-5 (IV) should not be imposed upon him for misconduct and inefficiency. The letter of explanation is as under:- ' ISLAMABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY No, 6650-51/IESCO/INQ- 3459 Dated 16-11-99 To Mr. Shirin Wali, Store Manager (Under Suspension) Islamabad.
Subject: Letter of Ex lanation Under Rule-5 IV of Pakistan Wa da Employees E & D Rules-1978.
' While Posted as Store Manager IESCO Regional Store, Rawalpindi you Mr. Shirin Wali, committed following acts of omission and commission"-
1. During the Inquiry of Regional Store Rawalpindi, it has been established that you were unable to perform your duties satisfactorily, General Management and administrative control of store including REO and disposal was found extremely poor. Staff discipline was ill maintained. There were enormous discrepancies in account of material. Stock record was not properly maintained. A lot of unaccounted store material was lying in the store premises without record. Amounting to mishandling and bad house keeping.
2. Some of the instances highlighting the gross irregularities perpetrated by you or made possible because of your negligence, during discharge of your duties as a store manager as substantiated by the Inquiry Committee are reproduced hereunder:--- (a). It was observed that huge un-accounted material was lying in the store premises without any record:--
(1) Huge un-accounted material was found in the Garage adjacent to the office of AET (GSO) without any record belonging to the store authorities.
(2) A huge wooden box full of hardware mostly consumed in stays-earthling was found hidden without any record in yard No,1.
(3) 510 transformer wheels hidden at various locations were found to excess of the requisite in yard No, 1.
(4) Almost 90 Braces were found without any record hidden behind transformers in yard No, 1.
(5) An unrecorded and unreported surplus reel of RABBIT conductor (without manufactures nameplate) was found hidden between the stack of DOG conductor in yard No,2. It also came in the notice that the deficiency of a reel of DOG Conductor was actually coIered with the same.
(6) It was observed that the paper transactions were incomplete in the case of certain items; for instance, two brand new batteries were lying there, which were issued on papers but on ground those were yet to be removed from store.
(7) During checking of the disposal store at Swan, eight bags-sacs of brand new items that too unaccounted and unrecorded were found well hidden among the old stationery sacs.
(8) Around three thousand blank, unsigned and unrecorded Stock Cards and almost same number of Bin Cards were retrieved from the cabinets of Stock Clerk and SSKs respectively.
(b) Enormous irregularities and aberrations were observed in your office and records as highlighted by the following facts:--
(1) Office board maintained to show the "Daily Stock Balance of Important Items" was never updated after 28 August 98. Which shows your lackluster in the discharge of duties.
(2) The Stock and Bin Cards were not maintained as per the paragraph 10.7 of "Manual of Distribution Stores".
(3) The list of material prepared during inquiry indicates gross discrepancies between ground balances and computer balances.
(4) During checking certain brand new items were found lying in the disposal store at Swan, which is the clear violation of the stacking procedure.
(c) In most of the Stock and Bin Cards, rubbing, overwriting, cutting erasures and fluiding were noted as a common practice. No disciplinary action was ever taken against anyone guilty of this blatant offence.
(d) The third garage from the mosque side adjacent to Bakramandi Colony whose responsibility was denied in the first place was also found having unaccounted and unrecorded items belonging to the regional store.
' These above noted irregularities, aberrations and acts of negligence on your part are tantamount to misconduct and inefficiency and laxity in control over your subordinates, which facilitated or encouraged the commission of offenses by them, under "The Pakistan Wapda Employees E&D Rules-1978" and thus warrant to take appropriate disciplinary action against you.
' Under Rule- 5(IV) of Pakistan Wapda Employees E&D Rules-1978 you are required to put in your written defence within 14 days of the receipt of this explanation letter, as to one or more of the penalties as described in Rule-4 ibid should not be imposed upon you for the above mis-conduct and inefficiency stating at the same time whether you want to be heard in person.
' If no defence is received within the stipulated period it will be presumed that you have no defence to offer and ex parte action shall be taken against you.
(Sd.)
(Brigadier Waseem Zafar Iqbal) CHIEF EXECUTIVE IESCO ISLAMABAD"
' He replied to the letter of explanation denying all the charges and pointing out various flaws in the allegations made against him which created doubt about the authenticity of these allegations. He stated that I B all the charges mentioned were based on assumptions and were not supported with the facts. Along with his reply he attached parawise rebuttal/explanation of all the allegations made against him. His reply was however, not considered satisfactory and he was issued a show cause notice on 14-12-1999 informing him that competent authority has decided to impose major penalty of dismissal from service and he was asked within 14 days of the receipt of that notice as to why such a penalty may not be imposed upon him. At the same time he was asked to indicate whether he would like to be heard in person. Show cause notice issued read as follows:-- "ISLAMABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY Islamabad"
No . 7353-55/IESCO/Inq: 3459/2 Dated: 14-12-1999 Mr. Shirin Wali the then Store Manager Regional Store IESCO Rawalpindi.
(Now under suspension and attached with this office)
Subject:- SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER RULE-5(V)(a) OF PAKISTAN WAPDA EMPLOYEES (E&D) RULES- 1978.
' On considering the defence reply to the letter of explanation served upon you, the undersigned in the capacity of competent authority is tentatively of the opinion to provisionally determine the major penalty of "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE" upon you.
' You are hereby called upon to show cause in writing as to why the proposed penalty may not be imposed upon you. Your reply must reach the undersigned within 14 days of the receipt of this notice stating at the same time as to whether you desire to be heard in person.
(Sd.) BRIG. WASEEM ZAFAR IQBAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE IESCO ISLAMABAD C.C.
1. The Regional Director, (I.C.) IESCO, Islamabad.
2. Master File.
' He replied to show cause notice referring to his earlier reply to letter of explanation where he stated that he has explained in detail all the charges. This reply was also not considered satisfactory and he was dismissed from service on 14-4-2000.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments stated that all the charges against the appellant were vague. Appellant in his reply explained in detail all those al4legations which should have satisfied the respondents but he was dismissed from service. All the allegations levelled against the appellant were said to be based on the inquiry conducted by a committee where appellant was not associated and it was held at his back which was confirmed from the facts. As the appellant was not associated with the inquiry, he had no opportunity to explain his conduct and produce defence. His detailed reply to each and every allegation made was rejected without assigning any reason. The appellant was given a so-called personal hearing but the order of dismissal was passed on the same day the personal hearing was given. This shows that the respondents had already made up their mind about his dismissal. The appellant was also subjected to discrimination as the appellant who was incharge of the store was dismissed from service while no action was taken against the persons actually responsible for the physical maintenance of store like Store Keepers and Junior Store Keepers etc. Appellant was the Store Manager and he was supposed to be overall Supervisor while actual store keeping and proper maintenance of the record was the responsibility of Senior Store Keepers and Junior Stores Keepers. In this connection, he produced duty list of the Store Manager as well as of the assistant Store Manager and the Store Keepers. Keeping in view the facts that the inquiry was held at the back of the appellant without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, was dismissed without assigning reasons and personal hearing given was not meaningful, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant may be reinstated in service.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the charges against the appellant were not vague and were framed subsequent to an inquiry held in the matter. He was the store manager and it was his ultimate responsibility to ensure that the store was kept in proper condition. He further stated that the appellant in order to save himself tried in vain to shift the responsibility to his subordinates working under him. Regular inquiry was not required to be held as the allegations were proved against the appellant on the basis of documentary evidence which were taken into account during the preliminary inquiry held against the appellant.
5. Heard both the counsel and perused the record available.
6. The appellant was charged for the act of omission and commission which resulted into irregularities in the maintenance of the store and record pertaining to it. The appellant replied to the charge sheet and gave in detail his point of view. The charges and the reply of the appellant for each and every charge are reproduced below for ready reference:-- CLARIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SHERIN WALI, EX-STORE MANAGER, REGIONAL STORE IESCO RAWALPINDI IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF EXPLANTION ISSUED VIDE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IESCO LETTER NO. 6650-51/IESCO/INQ- 3459 DATED 16-11-1999.
Para No.Contents of Charge/sClarification/s submitted by Mr. Sherin Wali, Store Manager(under suspension)
1During the Inquiry of Regional Store Rawalpindi, it has been established that you were unable to perform your duties satisfactorily, General Management and administrative control of Store including REO and Disposal was found extremely poor Staff discipline was ill maintained.
There were enormous discrepancies in accounting of material Stock record was not properly maintained.
A lot of un-accounted store material was lying in the store premises without record, amounting to mishandling and bad house keeping.This charge is totally denied as elaborated in para-1 of page-1 of my defence reply.
2Some of the instances highlighting the gross irregularities perpetrated by you or made possible because of your negligence, during discharge of your duties as a Store Manager as substantiated by the Inquiry Committee are reproduced hereunder.Necessary clarification and lacuna existing in charge has already elaborated under para-283 of my defence reply.
2(a)It was observed that huge un- accounted material was lying in the store premises without any record.Clarification is being submitted against each.
2a(1),Huge un-accounted material was found in the Garage adjacent to the office of AET (GSO) without any record belonging to the store authorities.Regional Store IESCO at Bakramandi Rawalpindi comprises following officials premises in all the relevant documents as per assets of Regional Store IESCO.
1. Yard-1 2. Yard-2 3. Covered Shade 4. Offices Beyond these premises, we don't have continued any official store garages at Bakramandi. Garage mentioned in the letter of explanation do not pertain to Regional Store Rawalpindi as such no one from Regional Store can be held Responsible for it. The competent authority may like to further investigate the case to dig out the actual owner of this garage found adjacent to the office of AET (GSO).
2a(2)A huge wooden box full of hardware mostly consumed in stays/earthing was found hidden without any record in yard No. 1.Wooden Box was reported to be lying in the store at a place which is a part of yard No. 1, cannot be termed as hidden. The petty hardware contained in it were, in fact, the parts of stay & earthing rods. The indenters did not bother to lift the same while drawing the store from time to time. As the SSK Concerned is also learnt to have received the letter of explanation as Such he would be in a better position to submit necessary clarification in this context.
2a(3)510 Transformer wheels hidden at various locations were found in excess of the requisite balances in yard No. 1.Out of total of 510 Nos. wheels, 444 Nos. wheels pertained to the 111 Nos. Transformer which were physically lying on stock. As regard balance 66 wheels, though the SSK is the actual person to give detailed clarification. However no ulterior motive of any official appears to have prevailed behind it. It is also incorrect that these transformer wheels were placed hidden as nothing can be hidden while that stands placed in store premises.
2a(4)Almost 90 Braces were found without any record hidden behind transformers in yard No. 1.This was a petty hardware and it was reported to be lying openly in the store premises which could, in no way, be considered as hidden. However the concerned SSK would be in a better Position to submit detailed clarification in this context as to why he did not hand over these petty hardware to the concerned indenters while issuing them the relevant items.
2a(5)An unrecorded and unreported surplus reel of RABBIT Conductor (without manufactures nameplate) was found hidden between the stack of DOG conductor in yard No.2. It also came in the notice that the deficiency of a reel of DOG Conductor was actually covered with the same.This appears to be an omission committed on the part of concerned SSK which can either be intentional or unintentional but the concerned SSK would be the actual person to give factual position for this omission.
2a(6)It was observed that the paper transactions were incomplete in the case of certain items, for instance, two brand new batteries were lying there, which were issued on papers; but on ground those were yet to be removed from the store.Tyres betteries and all otheraterial Covered under rate contract and purchased for immediate utilization on works, need not to be taken on stock as per procedure in vogue. These batteries were purchased against rate contact from Messrs S. Khalid & Sons Lahore for the trailors of Regional Store as per delivery challan No. 327 dated 26-7-1999. These batteries were received by the Drivers of the Trailors and put their signatures on the delivery challan as acknowledgement. No store requisition/ store document was ever prepared so the question of paper transaction does not arise.
2a(7)During checking of the disposal store at Swan, eight bags/ sacs of brandIn this connection it is clarified that eight bags/ sacs of brand new item, as given in the letter of explanation, new items that too unaccounted and unrecorded were found well hidden among the old stationery sacs.do not clearly indicate the detailed description of material. However in this regard it is submitted that Swan Disposal store comprises bulk quantity of disposal/ un-serviceable material whose verification is only carried out at the time of verification of lots by the standing committees constituted under WAPDA laid down Disposal Procedure. Had there been any serviceable item lying in the stock of unserviceable material, it could have been un-earthed at the time of verification by the survey committees and taken on stock. These lots of unserviceable material were lying prior to my taking over of charge. However the concerned Store Keeper who was holding the charge of disposal store, would be in a better position to give factual position in this regard.
2a(8)Around three thousand blank, unsigned and unrecorded Stock Cards and almost same number of Bin Cards were retrieved from the cabinets of Stock Clerk and SSKs respectively.According to the Inventory Control Procedure Section- 4 "Printing of formats", the R.D.(I.C) has been responsible for the printing of the formats/ books to be used under the Inventory Control System. These cards are printed locally from WAPDA Printing Press Rawalpindi and stored in the cabinets of Stock Clerks / SSKs. These blank cards had the same value as papers, files cover, clip or any other stationery article unless and until signed by the Store Manager & B&AO and entered in the "Card Control Register".
2b(1)Office board maintained To show the Daily/Stock Balance of important items was never updated after 28 August 98 which shows your lackluster in the discharge of duties.The maintenance of this board had since Been abandoned after introduction of Inventory Procedure in 1984 and Computerized Store Inventory System in 1992, as under these procedures, daily and weekly balances are submitted to the chairman A.E.B/Chief Executive IESCO through Director (I.C). As such, there is no significance of maintaining this board under new Inventory Control Procedure and no irregularity appears to have been committed.
2b(2)The Stock and Bin Cards were not maintained as per the paragraph 10.7 of Manual of Distribution Stores.The Stock/ Bin Cards were, in fact, properly maintained as per provisions of "manual of distribution store". Had any specific instance been quoted, the same would have accordingly been clarified.
2b(3)The list of material prepared during inquiry indicates gross discrepancies between ground balances and computer balances.As evident from the contents of the charge, neither detail of any such discrepancy has been communicated nor it can be concluded whether the department has sustained any loss there from or otherwise? Under these circumstances no further clarification can be given.
2b(4)During checking certain brand new items were found lying the disposalIn this connection it is clarified that theallegation cannot be clearly replied till detailed description of material found lying at Swan Disposal Store is store at Swan, which is the clear violation of the stacking procedure.provided. However in this regard it is submitted that Swan Disposal Store comprises bulk quantity of disposal/ un-serviceable material whose verification is only carried out at the time of verification of lots by the standing committees constituted under WAPDA laid down in Disposal Procedure. Had there been any serviceable items lying in the stock of unserviceable material, it could have been un-earthed at the time of verification by survey committees and taken on stock these lots ofunserviceable material were lying prior to my taking over of charge. However the concerned Store Keeper who was holding the charge of disposal store, would be in a better position to give factual position in this regard.
2(c)In most of the Stock and Bin Cards, rubbing, overwriting, cutting erasures and fluiding were noted as a common practice. No disciplinary action was ever taken against anyone guilty of this blatant offence.There might have some overwriting as it can only be attributed to human error and it naturally varies from person to person from the contents of the charge, any such omission have not reported to have resulted in any forgery or misappropriation/ loss to the department. However if the competent Authority still considers any such pen mistake/s as the irregularity, the official at fault maybe asked to" justify his position for that particular pen mistake/omission.
2(d)The third garage from the Mosque side adjacent to Bakramandi Colony whose responsibility was denied in the first place was also found having unaccounted andunrecorded items belonging to the regional store:The reply to this charge is same as that as given against para-2 a(1) above.
Concluding paraThese above noted irregularities, aberrations and acts of negligence on your part are tantamount to misconduct and inefficiency and laxity in control over your subordinates, which facilitated or encouraged the commission of offenses by them, under "The Pakistan Wapda Employees E & D Rules-.1978' and thus warrant to take appropriate disciplinary action against you..This sentence is, in fact, the narrative summary of above "letter of explanation" and in this context, the competent Authority may like to see theexplanation submitted by me at item of page-I of my defence reply.
' As above document would show, appellant on his part tried to explain each and every charge and gave his point of view in his defence. This was not accepted by the respondents without assigning any reason. The respondents were in their right (sic) qua in order to do justice it was responsibility of the respondents to give due consideration to his defence and if they had not agreed with his point of view, they should have given some plausible reasons for not agreeing with the appellant's explanation. This was, however, not done. Secondly denial by the appellant of the all allegations made against him had made the facts disputed. Disputed facts could only have been resolved by holding a regular inquiry wherein the appellant was to be given full opportunity to explain his position and the respondents could have rebutted the arguments of the appellant and produced their side of story. It was then for the inquiry committee to determine what was the truth and what were the actual facts. It has also been held by superior judiciary that where facts have become disputed, the way to resolve it was through holding a regular inquiry. But in this case it seems the appellant's point of view was dismissed summarily. Reading of preliminary inquiry also confirms the assertion made by the appellant that the appellant was not fully associated with inquiry. His statement was simply recorded and statements of witnesses were recorded in his absence. The respondents were asked to produce some record to show that the appellant's reply was duly examined/ considered and reasons for not finding that in order. They were not in a position to produce such record to support their case. It is also proved from the record that on the day, the personal hearing was given to him, he was dismissed from the service. It also strengthens the argument of appellant that personal hearing was given just to complete a formality and was not meaningful. Action against the appellant was, therefore, taken without holding regular hearing or giving a meaningful personal hearing.
7. The appellant in support of his case also produced certain documents relating to the stocktaking done by a team comprising of army officials. A report signed by Major Muhammad Arshad on 11-3- 99 along with certificate is reproduced below:--- "RESTD HQ 26 Bde Camp Area 103/6/CS(O)/PC 11, Mar. 99 To:-IESCO Islamabad HQ 19 Div.
Subject:-Report Stock Taking
1. Stock taking of following WAPDA stores have been Completed:-
(a) Regional Stores (Rwp Div), Bakramandi
(b) Regional Stores (Attock Div), Hattian
(c) Regional Stores (Pindi Gheb), Pindi Gheb
2. There is no discrepancy to report. Photo copies of the certificates by the Inspecting Officer are attached.
Maj. For Comd.
(Muhammad Arshad)
RESTD"
"STOCK TAKING CERT REGIONAL STORES RWP DIV It is certified that stock taking of Regional Stores Rawalpindi Div. was conducted by Maj Muhammad Amir Nasir Saqib from 4 Mar. to 6 Mar. 99 as Stock Balance report as on 4 Mar. 99 (Original Copy att). There is no irregularity to report.
Maj. OC (Muhammad Amir Nasir Saqib)"
' It certifies that the stocktaking of the store, for the period when the appellant was incharge, was conducted from 4-3-99 to 6-3-99 and no irregularity was noticed in the maintenance of stock. The stocktaking was done by one Major Muhammad Amir Nasir Saqib. On the other hand, the preliminary inquiry on the basis of which the charges were said to have been framed against the appellant was conducted by Director, Dy. Director and an Army Officer. The inquiry report was submitted on 12-11-99. These two reports are, therefore, contradictory in nature. Preliminary inquiry reported irregularities but the report of stocktaking done by another team found no discrepancy or irregularity in the maintenance of Regional Stores, Rawalpindi Division. These contradictory reports also required respondents to hold a detailed inquiry to determine which report was correct. The appellant has also pointed out the discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of respondents that no action was taken against B&AO and Accounts Officer. Senior Store Keepers; Anayat Hussain and Fida Muhammad, were dismissed from service but were reinstated by the department on their departmental appeals. No action was taken against Senior Store Keeper, Abdul Jabbar. Similarly, Junior Store Keeper & stock clerk were let off without any action. The nature of charges levelled against the appellant were of such type that prima facie negligence of those officials like Senior Store Keepers and Junior Store Keepers couldn't be ruled out. They were however, treated very leniently or were allowed to go unpunished.
7-A. Above facts cast doubt on the authenticity of charges made against the appellant. There was glaring contradiction in the stocktaking reports and the preliminary inquiry report-one reporting no irregularity in the maintenance of store during the same period while the preliminary inquiry holding appellant responsible. Appellant's specific denial had also made the facts disputed and all this could have been resolved only by holding detailed inquiry. Meaningful personal hearing was also not given to the appellant.
8. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with all back benefits from the date he was dismissed from the service.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Parties be informed.