' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER.)---The appellant had been serving the respondent No,1 as Senior Facilitation Officer, when following show-cause notice was issued to him:-- "Civil Aviation Authority, (Headquarters)
Terminal-I, Jinnah International. Airport, Karachi ' Ref. HQCAA/0558/2404/209/HR Dated 14 April, 2003.
Show-cause notice-Personal hearing.
(1) Your service record placed before me indicates that you were appointed as Facilitation Officer in PG-8 on 10th May, 1983 and were promoted as Senior Facilitation Officer in PG-9 w,e,f, 23rd April, 1991. Since your appointment in CAA you have been on different assignments and held a variety of position. In the performance of your duties, a number of glaring complaints from various quarters have been received which show your attitude towards service and uncalled for behaviour which also includes your doubtful integrity, stubbornness, over inquisitiveness, use of unfair means to acquire information, misuse of official authority and information, impersonation and indulging in other uncalled for activities.
(2) On the above grounds and your bad record of service you are to explain in person why you should not be compulsorily retired from CAA service under para.5.27 of CAA Service Regulations.
(3) You are, therefore, advised to appear before the undersigned on 29 April, 2003 at 1300 hours in the office of the undersigned in Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi for personal hearing under the said CAA Service Regulations.
(Sd.) Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Hamid Nawaz Khan Chairman, CAA ' Mr. Javed Ahmed, Sr. Fal. Officer/Corporate Manager Admn. CAA/0558-53$3/Fal.) Flight Standard's Dte. HCAA."
2. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant requested the respondents vide his letter dated 25-4-2003 to supply to him the relevant documents on which the allegations were based, so that he could submit his defence. He followed it up with a reminder dated 28-4-2003, but it was alleged, the respondents did not supply any documentary evidence, as requested and after hearing him personally on 29-4-2003, did not consider his explanation as satisfactory and imposed upon him major penalty of compulsory retirement from service under Civil Aviation Regulation No,5.27 vide order, dated 18-6-2003.
3. Appellant's departmental appeal dated 18-6-2003 against his compulsory retirement was rejected by the respondents, vide order, dated 17-7-2003. Being aggrieved by the original and appellate orders passed by the respondents, the appellant filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 on 4-8-2003, for declaring the impugned orders as bad in law, void ab initio and of no legal effect. Further to set aside the impugned orders and to reinstate the appellant in service of the respondents with all back-benefits.
4. The respondents filed the written comments.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. A perusal of the record shows that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had been initiated on 14-4-2003 by issuing him the show-cause notice personal hearing for compulsory retiring him for CAA service under para.5.27 of the CAA Service Regulations. In consequence of such show-cause notice and personal hearing, a major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the appellant under Regulation 5.27 of the CAA Service Regulations, vide order, dated 18-6- 2003.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under the CAA Service Regulations were illegal, ab initio, null and void, as in view of the promulgation of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, disciplinary proceedings had to be taken under the said Ordinance and not under the CAA Service Regulations.
He contended that the proceedings under the CAA Service Regulations violated the provisions of sections 3 and 5 of the said Ordinance and section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.
8. The relevant provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 are reproduced hereunder:- "11. Ordinance to override other laws.--- The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973) and the rules made thereunder and any other law for time being in force."
"12. Proceedings under this Ordinance., All proceedings initiated on the commencement of this Ordinance shall be governed by the provisions of this Ordinance and rules made thereunder: ' Provided that the Federal Government may, by Notification in the official Gazette, exempt any class or classes of employees of a corporation a corporate body, authority, statutory body or other organization or institution set up, established, owned, managed or controlled by it or a body or organization in which it. Has a controlling share or interest from the provisions of this Ordinance and such class or classes of employees shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, be proceeded against and dealt with under the laws and rules applicable to such employees before the commencement of this Ordinance."
9. Since the provisions of sections 11 and 12, reproduced above, have overriding effect on the Civil Servants Act of 1973 and any other law for the time being in force, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the proceedings against the appellant under the CAA Service Regulations were illegal, ab inito, null and void. It is a case of misapplication of law. Reliance is placed on 2003 SCMR 1718=2003 PLC (C.S.) 1304, 2003 PLC (C.S.) 600, 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1615 and unreported judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No,187(K)(C.S.) of 2002 M. Saleem v. WAPDA. We, therefore, without adverting to the merits of the case, remand it to the respondents for de novo proceedings against the appellant strictly in accordance with the relevant law on the basis of the same allegations, as contained in the show-cause notice dated 14-4-2003. Such proceedings be initiated and completed, within a period of four months. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. In the meantime, the appellant shall be reinstated in service, but the question of payment of back-benefits (for the period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere) shall depend upon the result of de novo proceedings. No order as to costs.
10. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters as per Rule 21 of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.