QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.- -- While the Appellant had been serving in the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited since 8.8.1978 as Supervisor BPS-11, then lastly as SDO BPS-16 a show- cause notice dated 6/12/2001 was issued to him under Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973 containing the following allegations:- "PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN TELECOMMUNICATION 49/d, Block-6. P.E.C.H.S, Karachi (Phone:4538454)
NO.STR-III/SP-122/GO/51 Dated at Karachi the 6-12-2001 SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE Whereas you Mr. Noor-ul-lslam Shaikh, SDOP (B-17) KAP Division STR-III Karachi, while working as D.E.(P) KAP, STR-III, Karachi under local arrangement found involved in installation and illegal operation of P.T.C.L, network in KAP exchange area.
And whereas you wilfully provided illegal access to the P.T.C.L, network to an authorized operator by managing to lay 150 meter length of secondary UG cable from cabine No. 19 directly at the premises of _ Mr. Akber Hussain at house No. A-primary cable from cabinet No. 30 cabinet 19 and extended 20 PSTN numbers directly thus causing heavy loss to the company.
And whereas you sanctioned and issued. 20 demand notes for installation of New Telephone connection on different names at Massan Ghatt Area without obtaining feasibility report and delivered all the demand notes in person to Mr. Akber Hussain.
And whereas you pressurized the ESP MDF for issuance of jumper slips mentioning that the cases are of important nature and for I.S.I, and later on signed ten jumper slip personally and provided Non, STD number which was against the policy of P.T.C.L.
And whereas ten out twenty telephone connections were installed on 23-10-2001 and remaining ten were installed on 31.10.2001 just after a gap of 7 days and have charged security deposit of Rs.
2000/- instead of Rs. 5000/-, thereby misusing your power and caused loss to the company.
And whereas the amount of Demand note issued vide No. EM 509-2001 to EM-523-2001 have not been credited in the concerned P.T.C.L, account there by causing loss to the company.
And whereas in the light of fact, circumstances and inquiry report submitted by General Manager STR-II Karachi (Copy enclosed) you have been found prima facie guilty of misconduct and corruption.
Now, therefore, you Mr. Noor-ul-lsfam Shaikh, SDOP (B-17) are hereby directed to Show Cause within 14 days of receipt of this Notice that whey the penalty of Dismissal from service as prescribed under E&DRules, 1973, should not be imposed upon you on the ground of Misconduct and Corruption stating at the same time whether you desire to be heard in person and adduce any evidence of witness in your defence.
In case no written reply is received within the specified time limit prescribed therein the case will be decided ex parte.
(AUTHORIZED OFFICER)"
2. The Appellant replied the above-mentioned show cause notice denying the allegations against him but without any regular enquiry a penalty of reduction by five steps in time scale was imposed upon him for a period of two years vide Order dated 2.6.2002.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to the fact that this is a case of misapplication of law as the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant had been initiated under Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973 instead of the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 which the law in force at the relevant time, overriding any other law for the time being in force. He argued that due to such misapplication of law, the entire disciplinary proceedings including the penalty imposed upon the Appellant was ab-initio void and nullity in the eyes of law.
4. The learned Counsel for the Respondents had not been able to controvert the above-mentioned position of law, nor had he been able to show to us if the PTCL was exempted from the operation of the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
5. Section 11 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 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 Services Act, 1973 (LXX1 of 1973) and the rules made thereunder and any other law for timebeing in force."
6. The view of the express provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 200Q and there being no exemption showing that the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was not applicable to PTCL, we have no hesitation in striking down the Order of penalty of the Appellant being ab-initio void and nullity in the eyes of law. We accordingly allow this Appeal, set aside the impugned Order with direction to the Respondents to hold de novo disciplinary proceedings ^gainst the Appellant strictly in accordance with the prevailing law viz the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The back benefits to the Appellant will depend upon the result of the de novo enquiry proceedings. We further direct the Respondents to initiate and complete de novo disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
7. For setting aside the impugned order, dated 27.6.2002 on the ground of misapplication of law, reliance is placed on 2003 PLC (CS) 600, 2004 SBLR 199, 1993 SCMR 1440, 1994 418, 1995 PLC (CS)
890 and unreported judgments of this Tribunal dated 19.10.2001 passed in Appeal No. 1490(K)
(CE)/2001 (Zafar Jamal vs. K.E.S.C.), and Appeal No. 233 (K)(CS)/2003 (Laiq Ahmed vs. The Chairman, PTCL and others.)
No order as to costs.
Announced in open Court on this 11th day of- February, 2006.
6. Copies of the Judgment be sent to the parties (under registered cover) and to the relevant quarters under rule-21 of the Service Tribunal (Procedural) Rules, 1974.