1. ' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---Appellant Muhammad Latif was STE in the respondents-Pakistan Railways and he was posted at Karachi City, when show-cause notice was issued to him along with statement of charges. Both of these documents are reproduced as under:-- "Pakistan Railways, Divisional Officer, Karachi ' No,E-1013/5/11 June 10, 2002 Show-cause notice
(1) Whereas you arc charged with gross misconduct and breach of discipline as per statement of charges attached.
(2) And whereas the competent authority has decided that there is no need of holding an .Inquiry against you under subsection (4) of section 5 of Ordinance XVII of 2000 (Removal from Service, Special Powers), Amended Ordinance No,V of 2001 and that proceedings are being initiated under section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 which might entail imposition of a major penalty of "Dismissal" from service as specified in section 3 of the said Ordinance.
2. ' Now, therefore, you are required to show cause within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, as to why the proposed action should not be taken against you.
3. ' If no response is received from you within the time stipulated above, it would be presumed that either you have no defence to offer and/or you wilfully declined to do so. The case shall then be decided on 'ex parte' without further reference.
4. (Sd.) (Abdul Qayyum)
5. General Manager (Operations)
6. ' Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore"
7. "No,E-1013/5/111 June 10, 2002 Statement of charges ' Whereas you Mr. Muhammad Latif, STE, Karachi City are charged with misconduct, inefficiency and corruption for the following charges and other relevant circumstances:-- ' You have also been awarded the following punishments:-- WIP one year on 14-11-1972 (waived oft).
8. WIT six months on 10-10-1973.
9. WIT two years on 29-11-1975.
10. WIT one year on 14-12-1979.
11. WIT one year on 2-4-1979 (waived oft).
12. Reduction in time scale by two steps for one year. WIP two years on 7-7-1979 (reduced to WIT two years).
13. WIP one year on 7-7-1979 (waived oft).
14. WIP one year on 17-7-1979 (waived oft).
15. WIT two years on 30-1-1983 (waived oft).
16. WIP one year on (sic)-1-1983 (waived oft).
17. WIT two years on (sic)-.2-1986 (reduced to warning).
18. WIT two years on 15-5-1989 (reduced to censure).
19. WIT one year on 16-10-1993.
20. WIT two years on 22-6-1994.
21. ' The above punishments clearly show that you have ceased to be efficient.
(b) You have persistent reputation of being corrupt and inefficient official of Pakistan Railways as is evident from the above punishments and other recorded evidence.
(c) It has been reported that you enjoy bad reputation.
(2) You are, therefore, being proceeded against under Removal from Service (Special Powers)
22. Ordinance, 2000-2001.
23. (Sd.) Abdul Qayyum, General Manager (Operations) Pakistan Railways Headquarters Office, Lahore."
24. ' The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 17-6-2002, but the respondents did not accept hig explanation and removed him from service vide Notification dated 16-7-2002, which is reproduced as under:-- ' Pakistan Railways Divisional Officer, Karachi July, 16, 2002 Notification ' No,E-1013/5/111. Whereas Mr. Muhammad Latif, STE, Karachi City was charged for misconduct, inefficiency and corruption vide show-cause notice bearing even number dated 10-6-2002 under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
(2) And whereas after considering the defence of the 'accused employee to the show-cause notice and other relevant circumstances the General Manager (Operations), Pakistan Railways Headquarters Office, Lahore found the official inter alia guilty of the charges mentioned in the above show-cause notice.
(3) Whereas the official has been found guilty of the charges therefore, the General Manager (Operations), Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore, has imposed the major penalty of Removal from Service with immediate effect under the said Ordinance upon Mr. Muhammad Latif, STE, Karachi City.
(4) Mr. Muhammad Latif, STE, Karachi City, shall have a right for representation and review to the Secretary/Chairman, Railways, ' Islamabad within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order under section 9 of the said Ordinance.
25. (Sd.) D.P.O. For Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi."
26. ' The representation/review of the appellant dated 31-7-2002 was not responded to by the respondents, as such, after waiting, for the statutory period of 60 days, the appellant filed the appeal before this Tribunal on 30-9-2002 under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973.
2. The respondents filed the written comments.
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 stated that the case of appellant was almost identical to the case of Muneer Ahmed and 3 others v. Divisional Superintendent; Pakistan Railways Sukkur and others being Appeal No,490(K)(CS) of 2002, decided on 5-7-2004 and reported in KLR 2004 Labour and Service Cases 201, as such, the appeal of the appellant was to be accepted on the principle of consistency and he was to be reinstated with all back-benefits.
5. We have perused the judgment in the above-mentioned case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, which was rendered by one of us (Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui). In the said case, we had formulated two points for determination viz. (i) Whether minor penalties awarded to the appellant in the past could be made basis for imposing major penalty of dismissal from service on the appellant; (ii) Whether the major penalty of dismissal could be imposed on the appellant without holding a regular inquiry into the allegations levelled against him. Same points also arise in the present appeal. After discussing the facts of the case and law on the above two points, we had decided both the points in the negative. We need not repeat the reasons assigned by us for such findings in the said case. Suffice it to say that this case being identical to the said reported case, for the sake of consistency, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service from the date of his removal. The appellant will be entitled to back-benefits for the period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere for which he shall submit an affidavit before the competent authority along with proof, if any, of his employment.
27. However, it will be open to the respondents to hold a de novo inquiry against the appellant strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four months. No order as to costs:
6. Announced in open Court.
7. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters.