' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).---The appellant who was Deputy General Manager (Development Cell) Pakistan Steel, Karachi has filed this appeal under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against his demotion from the post of Deputy General Manager vide Memo.
No,CAP/DGM(008443)/2002/PA-82369 dated 8-10-2002. His depart mental appeal dated 6-.11- 2002 was regretted vide Order No,A&P(EXMGR-008443)PA-A2893, dated 25-11-2002. The appellant has prayed to set aside the order of his demotion.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant while serving as Deputy General Manager in Pakistan Steel was the Incharge of Development Cell and the two school buildings namely Rana Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Bin Qasim Secondary Schools which after completion were handed-over to the Education Department of Pakistan Steel on 1-8-1995 and 12-8-1996 respectively by the Development Cell. To provide the Electrical connections and the installation of meters by KESC in these two (02) school buildings was the duty and responsibility of the Power and Gas Department of Pakistan Steel which was exclusively the function of Mr. Hameed Anwar being Incharge Power and Gas Department. The temporary power connections for both the school buildings on the request of Education Department were provided by the Power and Gas Department. There were outstanding bills against both the schools for about 36 months for which the Power and Gas Department was answerable for non-payment of these bills whereas the appellant was illegally held responsible for having failed to arrange payment of bills in respect of above-mentioned schools. The appellant was served with statements of allegations and charges as mentioned below which were denied by the appellant with sufficient evidence of procedure and practice but the Management was not satisfied and an enquiry was ordered where Mr. T.H. Qureshi, Incharge (Audit) was appointed as Enquiry Officer:--
(i) As a result of investigation into payment of electricity bills of Rana Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Bin Qasim Secondary School at Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Phase-II, leased out of Mari-Gold Educational Society, it has transpired that you failed to manage payment of electricity bill in respect of above schools through Mari-Gold Educational Society.
(ii) You failed in obtaining the estimates against the application of these schools and all other subsequent steps remained pending.
(iii) After retirement of Mr. I.C. Pinjani, you were responsible to get the pending job completed which could not be progressed due to care free attitude towards the said job.
(iv) Due to delay in the above matter caused by you, you provided an opportunity to send checking Army Monitoring Team and serving of two bills as per Note No,TS/C-/Estate (SCHS)/2001/ 353, dated 22-8-2001 upto the payment by PDN Department thus damaging the image of Pakistan Steel.
(v) Your above acts of gross negligence are prejudicial to good service discipline and unbecoming of an officer.
3. The enquiry was conducted in a question and answer manner and no witness was examined by the respondents and also the documents and procedure was not considered. Consequently the appellant received a final show-cause notice without a copy of enquiry report and the same was denied by the appellant. Finally the impugned order of demotion dated 8-10-2002 was received by the appellant to which he also submitted departmental appeal on 6-11-2002 which was also regretted by respondent No,2 on 25-11-2002.
4. The learned counsel of the appellant has submitted before us that the demotion of appellant was mala fide and on account of Departmental Arbitrary to the extent that the appellant was demoted on 9-10-2002 and on the next day he was also dismissed from service on the basis of manipulated charges. The learned counsel has further stated that Mr. Hameed Anwar was himself Deputy General Manager/Incharge of Power and Gas Department and out of he had himself investigated the matter and reported against the appellant to save his own skin. Mr. Hameed Anwar, Incharge Power and Gas Department had shifted the responsibility of his own Department to the appellant who had no concern with the electricity connection and installation of the meters in any of the buildings. It is further stated that the agreement between the Pakistan Steel and M/s. Mari-Gold Educational Society for leasing of said two schools has no concern whatsoever with the appellant or his Department as the same was signed and executed by another Department namely Township Department and none of any officer of the appellant's Department had signed or witnessed the said agreement. While executing the agreement there should have been clarification regarding liability of payment of electricity charges by the lessee i,e, Township Department but this has not been done by the Township Department. The learned counsel has further stated that the function of the appellant was only of development and construction affairs whereas making electricity connection and all other related matters was the duty of Power and Gas Department which had the exclusive function in which the said Department had failed to perform their duty. It is further stated that electricity bills of KESC were paid by the Power and Gas Department as per determination by the Chairman Pakistan Steel who had already referred the said matter to the Power and Gas Department being exclusively their function. This tact further proves that Power and Gas Department was solely responsible for payment of the bills which they had ignored at the initial stage while providing temporary electricity connection in the said two school buildings but contrary to that appellant had been involved in false charges. It was further stated that on the request of Education Department the temporary electric connections were provided by Power and Gas Department itself in the jurisdiction of KESC after the completion of school buildings and Power and Gas Department was supposed to fix the average electricity charges for payment against the temporary connections.
5. The learned counsel of the respondents has opposed the appeal on the ground that the appellant should have arranged the electricity connections even after handing over the possession to Education Department, however, he has admitted that there is a separate department namely Power and Gas Department in Pakistan Steel which is directly dealing with the KESC regarding all electrical matters. He has also stated as per instruction no enquiry report was supplied to the appellant which was not mandatory and that the question and answer session in the enquiry proceedings is correct procedure and there was no need to go into the details of the documents and duties.
6. We have heard the arguments of the both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. It is an admitted position that the function of the appellant's Department i,e, Development Cell was to construct the buildings and to hand over to the user Department. Similarly the said two (02) school buildings i,e, Rana Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Bin Qasim Secondary Schools were completed and handed over by the Development Cell of the appellant to the Education Department. Thereafter all matters pertaining to utilities i,e, electricity, gas, etc., were the functions of Power and Gas Department and not of the Development Cell of the appellant. It is further added that the temporary power connections to both these school buildings were provided by the Power and Gas Department and not by the Development Cell of the appellant therefore, it was the duty of the Power and Gas Department to inform the KESC for issuing the electric bills or to make another alternate that the construction charges of the electricity till the meters in the said school buildings are installed. The Development Cell of the appellant provided Electrical Test Reports to the Incharge Power and Gas Department in connection with installation of meters but they kept in pending these Electrical Test Report which actually delayed the process of installation of meter by KESC. Mr. I.C. Pinjani was only a Coordinator between the Development Cell and Power and Gas Department but the actual function for the connection of A electricity or billing was that of Power and Gas Department and not of Development Cell of the appellant. We have perused the letter dated 29-5-1997 of Mr. I.C. Pinjani regarding submission of electrical Test Reports of these two (02) school buildings which was marked to Incharge Power and Gas Department for taking further action which also proves that it was the function of Power and Gas Department to provide electric matters in the said school buildings. It appears that Power and Gas Department was responsible and liable, as the bills were referred to them by the Chairman which were ultimately paid by the Power and Gas Department. Moreover, the said leasing of both the schools to M/s. Mari-Gold Educational Society, the Lease Agreement was carried out and signed by Township Department and not by Development Cell of the appellant where it was the duty of the Leasing Agreement i,e, the Township Department to mention about all pending utility bills including electricity charges at the time of signing the agreement. Therefore, the appellant was not responsible while making the above Lease Agreement with M/s. Mari-Gold Educational Society. We have perused the photocopy produced by the appellant on record of the minutes of meeting dated 2-4-1999 held by Power and Gas Department with KESC regarding installation of energy meters and settlement of billings of Gulshan-eHadeed Phase-II which proves that the installation of meters and billing of electricity was the function of Power and Gas Department and not of the Development Cell of the appellant.
The function of the appellant was only of Development and Construction affairs and electricity connections was the duty of Power and Gas Department in which the said Department had failed to perform their duty. Moreover the electricity bills of the said two (02) school buildings were paid by Power and Gas Department as per determination of the Chairman. This fact further proves that the Power and Gas was solely responsible for payment of bills which they had ignored but contrary to that the appellant has been involved in false charges.
8. Under the aforesaid circumstances we find that the appellant is not guilty of the charges.
Therefore, while allowing the appeal we set aside the order of demotion dated 8-10-2002 of the appellant and restore the appellant to his original position with all pecuniary benefits. No order as to costs.##TSE#