' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---The appellant was a Ticket Collector in the respondents-Pakistan Railways, when he was issued a charge-sheet dated 6-11-2000 under Rule 5(i)(ii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 on the following allegations:- Allegations ' EFT Book No,0053301 to 0053325 was issued to you by GISTESRM (Group). The said EFTs detected by ACOR-2/1 KYC during his checking of Train No,9UP dated 19-10-2000 passengers complained that STE on Platform Mr. Muhammad Moosa has issued said EFTs and had overcharged from them. You vide DISTE's Letter No,Nil dated 14-9-2000 were directed to deposit Blank EFTs Books supplied to you with DI-STEs immediately but instead of this you handed over the said EFTs to Mr. Muhammad Moosa STE. Say under what authority did you hand over the said EFT to Mr. Muhammad Moosa instead of depositing with the DI-STE, KYC.
(Sd.) 6/1 r Deputy Division Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Karachi."
' The appellant denied the allegations against him, but after further disciplinary proceedings against him, vide order, dated 31-1-2001, he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. He made a departmental appeal to the respondent on 26-3-2001, but the same was rejected vide order, dated 14-7-2001; hence, this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973, praying to set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant from service and reinstating him in the employment with all back-benefits including continuity of employment, seniority, promotion etc.
2. In the written comments filed on behalf of the respondents, it was maintained that the appellant had been rightly penalized on charges of misappropriation of Government money.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under section 5(i)(ii) of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules 1973 and the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him under the said rules were illegal and ab initio void for the reason that the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 had already been promulgated on 27-5-2000 and as per section 11 of such Ordinance the said Ordinance overrode all other existing laws for disciplinary proceedings against any delinquent employee. In support of his contentions, he relied on PLJ 2003 SC 311; 1993 PLC (C.S.)
600 and 2004 SBRL 199.
5. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was already in the field and the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had to be taken under the said Ordinance, but instead of that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had been taken under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, which was misapplication of law. Due to such misapplication Of law, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were vitiated and these proceedings were illegal and void. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do support his contention that. The proceedings against the appellant were illegal and void.
6. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement of appellant from service and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service. However, we order that de novo disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the appellant and completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, strictly in accordance with the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, on the basis of same allegations, as mentioned in this appeal. The question of back-benefits benefits will depend upon the result of the de novo disciplinary r proceedings. No order as to costs.
7. Announced in open Court.
8. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters as per Rule 21 of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.