' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).----Vide order dated 19-2-2002, the appellant who was lastly working as Deputy Manager in Pakistan Steel Mills was awarded penalty of reduction to lower post of Assistant Manager from the post of Deputy Manager. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal to the Chairman Pakistan Steel Mills A which was rejected vide order dated 27-3-2002, hence, he filed the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 before this Tribunal on 26-4-2002 praying therein to set aside the penalty of reduction to lower post awarded by respondent No,1 and the rejection order dated 27-3-2002.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant who had joined Pakistan Steel as Senior Assistant w,e,f, 10-7-1976 and later on was promoted as Deputy Manager on 2-1-1989 was served with the show- cause notice dated 26-11-2001 along with Statement of Allegations dated 22-10-2001 under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 wherein it was alleged that:-- "As a result of scrutiny of relevant record, it has been revealed that a copy of Security Report No,648/2001, dated 24-8-2001 to the effect that you have not marked your attendance/put your signatures in the attendance register during the entire months of July and August, 2001 was down marked to you by G.M. (CMD) on 30-8-2001. The Security Report carried the orders "please clarify" and "please put up urgently" given by the Competent Authority and Director (Marketing)/C.E.
(PSFCL) respectively.
' A Letter of Explanation dated 25-9-2001 was issued to you directing you to explain your position vis-a-vis above allegation within three days of the receipt of the said letter.
' You neither clarified your position nor rendered your explanation within stipulated time as directed.
' Your above acts of not obeying lawful command promptly are prejudicial to good service discipline and unbecoming of an officer."
3. The appellant submitted his reply to the aforesaid statement of allegations thereby denying all the allegations therein but his reply was not found satisfactory and an enquiry was held wherein the Enquiry Officer in his findings held the appellant guilty but recommended for withholding of his Annual Increment with a strict warning to be careful in future but the Management of the Respondents did not agree to it and awarded the punishment of demotion to the post of Assistant Manager vide order dated 19-2-2001 against which the appellant preferred a departmental appeal to the Chairman, Pakistan Steel Mills which was rejected vide order dated 27-3-2002, hence this appeal.
4. The respondents in their Parawise Comments justified the impugned order of demotion.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the impugned order 'Whereby the punishment awarded to the appellant of reduction to lower post by the respondents but duration/period for effectiveness of the punishment was not indicated, hence the punishment so awarded as well as rejection order are unlawful. In support he has placed reliance on FR-29, 2000 PLC (C.S.) 270, and 2004 SCMR 647. The learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that enquiry conducted in question and answer from was invalid in the light of the ruling reported in 2001 T.D. (Service) 361. He also further assailed the enquiry proceedings on ground that it was conducted in a summary manner. In this regard he cited rulings reported in 2000 PLC (C.S.) 270 and 2000 PLC (C.S.) 1252. He also pointed out that enquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules as in the Statement of Allegations it was alleged that the appellant had not marked his attendance on the attendance Register for the months of July and August, whereas enquiry was conducted in respect of Attendance Register of Daily Wages Employees which had not been signed by the appellant and to which he had no concern at all. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant always remained present and signed the Attendance Register of Officers regularly whereas Security Guard had observed Attendance Register of Daily Wages Employees wherein the Appellant had not signed against his name written by someone in the bottom of Register with mala fide intention to involve the appellant in the present case. The learned Counsel contended that the appellant had been regularly signing the Attendance Register.
He contended that there are no rules that the appellant should also sign on the Daily Wages Employees Register against his name written by someone in the bottom of Register with mala fide intention. The learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the cross-examination of the Respondent's witness Muhammad Bashir who had stated that it is surprising that the Attendance Register of Daily Wages Employees was not signed by the appellant for the last two months and nobody had checked it. Learned Counsel argued that from this it transpires that there was no name of the appellant but the same was added subsequently to involve the appellant with mala fide intention. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has specifically stated in the enquiry that during the entire service he did not put his signature on the Daily Wages Register nor there are such rules that he will sign on two Registers but on the contrary the Respondent's witness has admitted that the appellant has been signing regularly on the Register of Officers. The learned Counsel further pointed out that according to the Pakistan Steel Service Rules, where an inquiry officer or inquiry committee is to be appointed, the authorized officer shall:--
(a) "Frame the charge and communicate it to the accused altogether with Statement of the Allegations explaining the charge and of any other relevant circumstances which are proposed to be taken into consideration.
(b) Require the accused within a reasonable time, which shall not be less than seven days or more than fourteen days from the day the charge has been communicated to him."
' The learned Counsel further argued that in this case the appellant was given only three days' time for giving reply to the Explanation which was against the rules because rules provide at least seven days or fourteen days' time for giving the reply to the Explanation. He further alleged that the proceedings against the appellant suffered from another infirmity that enquiry report was not supplied to the appellant along with the show-cause notice which is mandatory requirement. In this regard he cited ruling reported in PLD 1981 SC 176. The learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the order rejecting the appellant's departmental appeal was not a speaking order which is in violation of section 24 of the General Clauses Act. He relied on 2000 PLC (C.S.) 857. He further argued that same authority cannot review its own order. In this regard he relied on the ruling reported in 1987 PLC (C.S.) 875. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire service record of the appellant is unblemished and he was posted as Deputy Manager in the respondent Department. On 25-9-2001 he was issued Explanation that he did not sign Attendance Register during the months of July and August, 2001, further that he had reported for duty at 0940 hours, hence his above acts are subversive of discipline and highly objectionable. The appellant tendered his reply to the said Explanation stating that he was not marking his Attendance in Daily Wages Register but was putting his signature in the Permanent Register of Officers from the date of the posting. The Respondents authority on 22-10-2001 ordered for enquiry and on the same date i,e, 22-10-2001 Respondent No,3 issued Statement of Allegations on the same charges and also added further allegations that he failed to explain his position within 3 days and did not clarify the position within stipulated time, hence his acts of not obeying the lawful command are prejudicial to good service discipline and unbecoming of an Officer. The Respondents' authority ordered for enquiry.
The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in his own ways and styles and submitted his findings to the authorities suggesting therein that annual increment of the appellant be withheld with strict warning to be careful in future. The Respondents called the appellant for personal hearing. On 19- 2-2002, the appellant was awarded the punishment of reduction to one stage lower in pay scale/reduction to the post of Assistant Manager and his pay was also reduced. The appellant preferred representation to Respondent No,1 for setting aside the punishment but the Respondent No,1 rejected his appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the allegations made in the Statement of Allegations against the appellant were based on misreporting and incorrect information. He contended that the appellant had been marking his attendance in the Officer's Register and his attendance in the said Register was being regularly marked by him with his initial indicating his presence on duty. The appellant in support has produced photo-copy of the Attendance Register of the Officer of Admin, PSFCL for the period from July to August 2001 which clearly shows-initials/presence of the appellant. The learned counsel further contended that the enquiry was conducted altogether in different styles in which it has been shown that he had not signed the Attendance Register of Daily Wages. There is no such mention in the statement of Allegations against the appellant. However, it is mentioned therein that the appellant has not put his signature in the Attendance Register. The learned Counsel has invited our attention to the Enquiry Proceedings wherein witness Muhammad Bashir of the Respondents has admitted during cross-examination that there are initials of the appellants on the said Register. The learned Counsel contended that the respondent No,2 has issued Show-cause Notice to the appellant which was in violation of sections 2(aa) and 3(2) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 is such order was passed by incompetent authority. He contended that the punishment of reduction to lower post was awarded by Respondent No,2 but duration of period for effectiveness of the punishment was notindicated, hence the punishment so awarded as well as rejection order is unlawful. He further contended that the same authority passed the order and revived it by way of rejecting the appeal of the appellant which is entirely illegal. He further contended that one Bashir Khan was detailed as prosecutor who assisted the Enquiry Officer vide rule 6.8(d) of Pakistan Steel Service Rules and role of the prosecution was to assist the Enquiry Officer and not to appear as witness whereas Bashir Khan has been examined as witness which is against the rules. He further contended that the enquiry was conducted for awarding the major punishment which is not tenable in law and the copy of the Enquiry Report was not supplied to the appellant and the enquiry was conducted in question and answer from which is violative of law.
The learned Counsel further contended that the impugned order of reduction to lower post as Assistant Manager dated 19-2-2002 has been issued by Respondent No,2 who was neither authority nor Authorized Officer for the appellant and the said letter dated 19-2-2002 is silent as to which authority had exercised such powers for passing the impugned order of punishment of reduction to lower post, as such the impugned order is liable to be struck down.
7. We have carefully gone through the record and are of the considered view that the crucial point involved in this case is that the appellant as per Statement of Allegations had not signed the Attendance Register for the months of July and August, 2001 whereas enquiry was conducted altogether in respect of Attendance Register of Daily Wages B Employees. This is serious legal infirmity which has vitiated the entire enquiry proceedings an null and void. There is no mention in the Statement of Allegations or the show-cause notice about the signatures of the appellant on Daily Wages Attendance Register for the months of July and August, 2001. There is only mention that as a result of scrutiny of relevant record, it has been revealed from the copy of Security Report No 648/2001 dated 24-8-2001 to the effect that the appellant has not marked his attendance/put his signatures on the attendance register during the entire months of July and August, 2001 marked to him by G.M. (CMD) on 30-8-2001. A Letter of Explanation dated 25-9-2001 was issued to the Appellant directing him to explain his position within three days of the receipt of the said letter. The question arises whether the appellant had failed to comply with the letter dated 25-9-2000 issued to him directing the appellant to explain to the position within three days. In this respect the appellant vide his reply had specifically explained that he remained very busy in the official work i,e, 32 important enquiries cases, relieving of 33 transfers and other urgent matters entrusted to him by his superiors and therefore, he was unable to give reply and preferred to first complete the official work in the best interest of the organization. However, he apologized that minor negligence in the interest of organization be excused. The appellant had produced photo-copies of such documents which clearly support the case of the appellant that he was busy upto the extent that he was unable to reply the explanation. The Appellant in his reply had stated that he was not marking his attendance in daily wages register but was putting his signatures in the permanent register of officers. The Attendance Register pertaining to regular officers was seen and it was found that the appellant had been putting his signatures on the permanent register of officers, therefore, the plea of the Respondents that the appellant had not marked his attendance in the attendance register during the entire months of July and August is incorrect. Thus the order of demotion of the appellant from Deputy Manager to Assistant Manager is illegal, ab initio void which is hereby set aside and the appellant is restored to his original position, from where he was demoted to the post of Assistant Manager. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of the impugned order of demotion dated 19-2-2002. No order as to costs.