' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).--- This is an appeal under section 4 read with section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the impugned order passed by respondent No,2 and conveyed by respondent No,4 on 14-11-2001 against which the appellant preferred his representation to the respondent No,1 and reply thereto is still awaited.
2. Relevant facts of the case as narrated in the memo of appeal are that the appellant joined as Singlar with effect from 16-11-1977. Subsequently, he was promoted as RSM in the year 1994 and thereafter he was regularized as Station Master and by the last the appellant was posted in May, 2001 at Railway Station Gopang.
3. In the year 2000 the appellant was posted as Station Master Shah Abdul Latif Railway Station when on 15-9-2000, the respondent No,3 in the capacity as Authorised Officer issued charge-sheet vide No,52- ET/22/1/2000 to the appellant along with charges of allegation regarding omission, commission and irregularities in filling up certain papers/ record of Railway Station Shah Abdul Latif, which were reported to have been detected by the DTI Pakistan Railways Karachi City. The appellant on 12-10-2000 tendered his reply to the said charge-sheet to the respondent No,3 and rebutted all the so-called 6 charges which were levelled against the appellant in the charge-sheet dated 15-9-2000 and categorically denied that the inspection was conducted in absence of the appellant while the appellant was on leave and the relevant record was also not made available to the appellant and the said record had been of used portion and the operation/function/working of the Pakistan Railways was not hampered in any way. Over and above the charges levelled against the appellant were not to the period belonging to the appellant but erroneously was postulated in the pigeon of the appellant. In the charge-sheet served to the appellant on 15-1-2000 one Mr. Ghulam Nabi ATO-H was appointed as Inquiry Officer under Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1973 to conduct the departmental inquiry with respect to the charges. The said Inquiry Officer called for the appellant on 31-10-2000 and recorded the statement of the appellant in question and answer form and thereafter the appellant was directed back to his place of posting. On 13-1-2001, the respondent No,3 as Authorised Officer issued show-cause notice to the appellant vide No,52- ET/22/1/2000 along with copy of the inquiry report and the appellant was directed to tender his reply within 14 days. The appellant on 31-1-2001 tendered his reply of the said show-cause notice to respondent No,3 and rebutted all the so-called charges which were levelled against the appellant and in detail gave his reasons for rebuttal of the charges. The factual position is that the DTI Karachi conducted inspection on 17-7-2000 but at the end of his report he wrote as 17-5-2000 which was the actual date. The DTI physically had not visited the station and prepared the inspection note by sitting in his office at Karachi. The DTI Karachi had also searched the personal belongings of the appellant and prior to the inspection on many occasions the said DIT visited the station and signed the train passing record and no such irregularity ever was pointed out by the DTI. The record indicted in his inspection was false and fabricated and was not written by the appellant nor had been relating to the period of the reply to show-cause notice. After tendering reply to show-cause notice on 12-2-2001, the Station Master Shah Abdul Latif Railways Station through his message No,17/SM/2001 informed the appellant that the appellant was required to appear before the respondent No,3 on 13-2-2001 in his office for personal hearing as per his office No,52/ET/22/1/2001 dated 8-2-2001. On 14-11-2001, the respondent No,4 conveyed the order of the respondent No,2 that the respondent No,2 had gone through the charges, defence carefully and had been of the firm opinion that the appellant was found indulged in serious irregularities relating to the train operation and safety hence the appellant was imposed the major punishment of removal from service. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned order of removal from service dated 14-11-2001 awarded by the respondent No,2 the appellant sent his representation to the respondent No,1 on 23-11-2001 for setting aside the said order of removal from service and reinstating the appellant in to service. Respondent No,1 has not communicated any reply of acceptance or rejection of the representation of the appellant sent on 23-11-2001 and period of 90 days under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has expired on 23-2-2002. The appellant after waiting for statutory period of 90 days and within next 30 days filed this appeal.
4. The respondents have filed written statement wherein it was stated that as per extent Railway Rules the appellant was posted as SM/SDLF station on 28-8-2000 DTI/KYC inspected SDLF station and found that SM had kept four duplicate line clear books in his Almirah which was not locked some line clear tickets of the books were torn, which record portion were lying blank he indulged in very serious irregularities relating to train operation and safety in this connection the Authority officer issued charge-sheet in favour of the employee. On 22-8-2000 DTI/KYC inspected the SDLF station and observed that S.M. Muhammad Saleem was not available at the station. In his absence DTI/KYC started inspection while checking train operation record of station, Muhammad Saleem had partially filled line clear, tickets, books were kept for use in the absence of S.M. The train operation (Confidential) record were signed by him before leaving the station without properly relieved. DTI/KYC reported the matter to the authority on which the charge-sheet was issued to him, in which the Authority Officer nominated Enquiry Officer. The enquiry conducted on 31-10-2000 and 1-11-2000 in the cross-question (Nos.10 and 12) of Case No,52/ET/22/1/2000 Mr. Muhammad Saleem accepted that the signature on line clear tickets are of his A.S.M. (Muhammad Riaz)
Muhammad Riaz has stated in reply to question No,4 that the signature on line clear tickets are of S.M. Muhammad Saleem, thus this proved by C/Officer that the line clear books and tickets are SDLF station and all these books were duly stamped with S.M./SDLF stamp.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order as illegal, void as the appellant was not afforded personal hearing in disregard of the rulings of the apex Court. He also argued that major punishment has been imposed upon the appellant on the basis of the fact finding enquiry which is not sustainable in law and that even that fact finding enquiry was conducted in violation of rules and procedure and it was in question answer form. The learned counsel for the appellant also stated that impugned order may be set aside and matter be remanded back to the department for de novo departmental action as per rules. Learned counsel for the respondents also requested that in view of the infirmities as defined by the learned counsel for the appellant the case may be remanded back to the respondents for de novo proceedings.
7. In view of the above facts, we remand the appeal to the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service and conduct de novo proceedings against the appellant strictly in accordance with law.
Fresh proceedings should be completed within a period of 4 months and the question of back- benefits will be decided on the outcome of these proceedings.
8. No order as to costs. Copies of judgment be sent to the parties under registered covers under Rule 21 of Service Tribunals (procedure) Rules, 1974.