QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.- -- Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant were initiated by suspending him first vide order dated 26.4.2000 and then on the basis of three fact-finding inquiry, detailed below:- ' (i) Conducted on 19.7.2000 by Nisar Ahmed Solangi, DGM (I.A);
(ii) Conducted by Syed Ashfaque Hussain Bukhari, Port Facilitation Officer on 5.8.2000;
(iii) Conducted the inquiry and submitted their findings on 19.7.2001.
The Appellant was retired compulsorily vide order dated 22.8.2001 without any show-cause notice and personal hearing.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that whole disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant were absolutely illegal as no-charge sheet was issued to the Appellant, no show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant. The Appellant was neither associated in any of the three inquiries and he was not given any chance to cross examine the witnesses and to put up his defence. Over and above all this, he was not given an opportunity of personal hearing; hence, on the basis of fact-finding inquiry, without following the procedure of disciplinary proceedings, as laid down in the prevalent law i.e. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, no punishment whatsoever, major or minor, could be imposed upon the Appellant. The learned counsel therefore, urged that the impugned order which was nullity in the eyes of law, be set-aside and the Appellant be reinstated in service with full back benefits as prayed by him. The learned counsel relied on 1998 TD (Service) 152, 2004 RLC (CS) 1615, PLJ 2003 SC 511, 2002 PLC (CS) 289, 2003 PLC (CS) 365, SCMR 2005 111, 2003 TD (Service) 287, 1997 TD (Service) 247, 2004 SCMR 316, 2004 SCMR 1662, 2004 PLC (CS) 396, F*LD 1994 SC 72.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents die) not deny the fact that the three fact-finding inquiries were held against the Appellant. He was not able to show to us if any witness was examined and the Appellant was given chance to cross-examine the witnesses. He was also not able to say if any opportunity of personal hearing was given to the Appellant. He also did not show to us if any show- cause notice was issued to the Appellant or any charge sheet was issued to him.
The learned counsel further did not show if there was any admission of any allegation on the part of the Appellant.
5. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that imposition of major penalty on the Appellant was not only illegal, but ab-initio void and nullity in the eyes of law. We, therefore, allow this, appeal and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Appellant in service from the date of his compulsory retirement. We further direct the Respondents to hold de novo disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant on the same allegations strictly in accordance with law. The de novo disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated and completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The back benefits shall depend upon the result of de novo proceedings.
6. Announced in open Court.
7. NO order as cots.
8. 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.