' QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).---This is an appeal under section 4 read with section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 against the order, dated 20-6-2002, passed by the respondent No,2. The appellant had been serving the respondents Railway for the last about 20 years. Lastly he served as Fireman, when he was served with a show-cause notice dated 22-5- 2002 along with statement of allegations. The allegation against the appellant was that he was found involved in misappropriation of 5461 liters HSD Oil with the connivance of Muhammad Ayub, Station Master, Braudabad and he enjoyed bad reputation. The appellant filed reply to the show- cause notice on 4-6-2002 denying the allegations against him.
2. The respondents in the very show-cause notice dispensed with the holding of any inquiry against the appellant as required under sections 5 and 6 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 and without issuing any final show-cause notice to the appellant about proposed punishment (as stated in the show-cause notice) and without any personal hearing removed the appellant from service.
3. We' have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant states that an incompetent person (D.S. Railways), issued the show-cause notice to the appellant wherein major 'penalty was proposed and the holding of the inquiry was dispensed with without any reason. That, thereafter, without any inquiry and considering the reply of the appellant and without issuing final show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of personal hearing the appellant was condemned and removed from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that it was within the competence of the respondents to dispense with the inquiry against the appellant and that the nexus of theft of the oil by the appellant was based on the F.I.R. Lodged against him and others at Police Station Kotri being F.I.R. No,5 of 2000. The learned counsel for the respondents conceded that no inquiry was held against the appellant, no final show-cause notice of major penalty was issued to him and no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant.
5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and perused the record of the case.
6. The case of appellant patently suffers from infirmities which do not call for any citation or any authority of the superior Court. However, in support of these lapses on the part of respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied oil the following:--
(i) Photocopy of Railway Notification indicating authority under the Ordinance, (ii) 2004 SCMR 316=2004 PLC (C.S.) 344, (iii) PLJ 2003 Tr.C. (Service) 231, (iv) 2004 PLC (C.S.) 959; (v) Photocopy of Notification dated 21-9-2001, (vi) 1986 PLC (C.S.) 419,, (vii) PLD 2004 SC 441, (viii) 1984 PLC (C.S.) 641,
(ix) 2002 PLC (C.S.) 480, (x) 2003 PLC (C.S.) 365, (xi) 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1306.
7. It is an 'admitted position that the name of appellant' was not mentioned in the F.I.R., referred to above. On the other hand, the name of the appellant as one of the thieves of stealing the oil does not transpire even in the charge-sheet or the statement of charges (statement of allegations). The only allegation in the statement of charges is as under:-- "You have been found involved in misappropriation of 5461 liters HSD Oil with the connivance of Mr. Muhammad Ayub, station Master, Braudabad."
' Now the above allegations are based on some facts which needed to be proved by means of an inquiry, but we find that the respondents had shut out the evidence to prove such allegations by shelving the inquiry even in the show-cause notice. There was no other evidence on record to support such allegations against the appellant. Moreover, Muhammad Ayub, the Station Master, Braudabad, whose name transpires in the statement of charges, was not subjected to any departmental inquiry like that of the appellant. No final show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and he was also not provided an opportunity of personal hearing. Indeed the case of the respondents suffers from material infirmities and violations of law. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the respondents had failed to prove the charges against the appellant. There is no shred of evidence against the appellant connecting him with the incident of theft or about his enjoying bad reputation. As such, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and order reinstatement of the appellant with all back-benefits. We order that accordingly, but with the remarks that the proceedings before this Tribunal shall have no bearing on the criminal case against the appellant.
8. Announced in open Court.