' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).--- Appellant Muhammad Hanif while serving as Assistant Manager, P.S.P.S. Department in Pakistan Steel was removed from service vide order, dated 5-11-2002 by respondent No,2 against which he filed departmental appeal to respondent No,1 on 14-11-2002 which was rejected vide order, dated 22-11-2002, hence he filed the present appeal on 4-12-2002 praying as. Under:--
(a) To set aside the order of removal from service dated 5-11-2002 passed by respondent No,2 and as well order of rejection, dated 22-11-2002 passed by the respondent No, 1 .
(b) To reinstate the appellant into, service with all consequential benefits.
(c) Costs of the appeal.
(d) Any other relief as the Honourable Court may deem proper and fit under the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the present case are that appellant joined Pakistan Steel as Storeman with effect from 29-4-1976, ASK w,e,f, 30-4-1978, Storekeeper w,e,f, 1-5-1980, Junior Officer w,e,f, 2-5-1983 and finally the appellant was promoted as Assistant Manager with effect from 3-5-1986. According to him, he had unblemished record of service and no minor or major punishment was ever awarded to him and his services were appreciated on many occasions by his superiors. Vide order dated 31- 5-2002 while the appellant was posted as Assistant Manager (PSPS) Department of Pakistan Steel was placed under suspension by respondent No,5 and he was issued the following statement of allegations and charges on 31-5-2002:--
(i) That you have been found responsible for wrong loading of runner scrap instead of HMLR on Truck No,JT-1178 of Messrs Usman Trading Corporation of Stock Yard Gate-4, M.P. On 17-5-2002 against delivery order No,370143 dated 2-5-2002.
(ii) That being custody officer, you failed to ensure the loading of proper material as per delivery order No,370143 dated 2-5-2002 on that date.
(iii) That you deliberately avoided the wrong loading of expensive material against delivery order of cheap item with mala fide intention in association with customer/party.
3. Vide letter, dated 14-6-2002 the appellant was -directed to attend enquiry on 18-6-2002 in the office of respondent No,4. On 11-6-2002 the appellant submitted reply to the aforesaid statement of allegations and charges denying all the allegations against him. In his reply, he submitted that he was not present in his office and had gone to "SLAG Dumping Yard" for duties under the order of authority at about 5 Kms. Away from Gate No,9 as such, he cannot be held responsible for the omission and commission of others. On 25-7-2002 he had also submitted his statement before the Inquiry Officer wherein he had denied the charges levelled against him. The respondent No,4 (Inquiry Officer) submitted his findings holding that the appellant was not found guilty of charges as he was engaged in a job assigned by his Manager to him five kilometers away from the gate.
The competent authority appointed another Inquiry Officer (respondent No,3) who issued fresh statement of allegations and charges to the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and stated, that he was not present at the time of such incident, as such, he cannot be held responsible. Subsequently, respondent No,2 issued show-cause notice to the appellant on 25-10- 2002 holding the appellant guilty of charges. The appellant submitted his reply denying the charges against him. On 4-11-2002 the appellant was called for personal hearing wherein he gave the same reply that he was out of place and was at about 5 kilometers away from there, but vide order, dated 5-11-2002 he was removed from service, against which he filed departmental appeal and on rejection of his departmental appeal he filed the present appeal well within time.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including the comments filed on behalf of the respondents as well as the inquiry report.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merit, he argued that the appellant was not present at the time when the truck was being loaded because he had the duties to supervise two places. He pointed out that in the earlier inquiry his contention was accepted and he was exonerated but in the second enquiry there is nothing on record if the appellant was present at the time of loading or not. He urged that due to dismissal of the appellant from service not only he but his family also had to suffer financial hardship and starvation and he had to remain jobless as due to advance age he was not likely to get a suitable job anywhere; that added to all this, due to punishment of dismissal the appellant was also deprived of service benefits of his long service. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the pitiable case of the appellant required sympathetic consideration by reinstating the appellant in service, modifying of his punishment to what has been recommended by the first Inquiry Officer. He placed on record photo copies of the order, dated 13-1-2002 whereby Muhammad Ziauddin, Junior Officer of P.S.P.S. :Department was removed from service, but subsequently, his punishment was modified to one stage lower in pay grade. He further stated that no F.I.R. Was lodged in the case against anyone. He urged that the same treatment be given to the appellant as like that of Ziauddin because the case of the appellant cannot be distinguished from Ziauddin.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Enquiry Officer ,though found the appellant not guilty, yet on vetting it appeared that the inquiry report contained technical flaws on the basis of which the de novo enquiry was ordered by the competent authority. He contended that the appellant was custody officer of the material lying at Gate No,9 as well as at Gate No,4. He contended that the appellant was present on duty on 17-5-2002, therefore, he was responsible for correct loading which he did not ensure.
7.. We have carefully considered the arguments of both sides.
8. As per record the scrapped iron was to be loaded in the truck for certain party but instead of that costly material was loaded which was detected at the gate. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not present at the time when the truck was being loaded because he had the duties to supervise two places. He pointed out that in the earlier enquiry his contention was accepted and he was exonerated but in the second enquiry there is nothing on record if the appellant was present at the time of loading or not. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the pitiable case of the appellant required sympathetic consideration by reinstating the appellant in service, modifying of his punishment. He placed on record photo copies of the order, dated 13-11-2002 whereby Muhammad Ziauddin, Junior Officer of P.S.P.S. Department was removed from service, but subsequently, his punishment was modified to one stage lower in pay grade. He prayed for same treatment as like that of Ziauddin because the case of the appellant cannot be distinguished from Ziauddin.
9. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of removal of the appellant and modify the penalty of removal from service to his reduction from Assistant Manager to one stage lower in pay scale for a period of two years. He shall be reinstated in service from the date of his removal with all back-benefits in accordance with reduced pay scale, but that shall before the period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, for which he shall submit an affidavit before the competent authority.
' No order as to costs.
10. Copies of judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover under Rule 21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.