Ch. Muhammad Ilyas, Member.--The services of the appellant who was originally a Token Man were utilized in the office of S.S. Khanewal as Naib. Qasid. He was alleged to have played a role in facilitating a double drawal of pension amounting to Rs, 12,260/- by one Mr. Bashir Hussain, a retired fitter. He was dismissed from service vide the impugned order dated 21.6.2002. His departmental appeal was rejected by the Divisional Superintendent Multan on 13.1.2004, hence this appeal filed on 19.1.2004.
2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Token Man/Naib Qasid had apparently, as claimed by the appellant, nothing to do with the disbursement of pension which was the duty of the Station Master. It was alleged that his name was got included by one. Mr. Shahid Hussain, Ticket Collector, Khanewal who harboured ill feelings against him. He was made to record his statement a number of times on 1.12.2001, 27.12.2001 and 28.12.2001 wherein he pointed a finger at the Station Superintendent and other staff and protested that if he was further pressurized, he would seek remedy from the Court of Law. The authorities thus fabricated a case against him mala fidely.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out a technical flaw in the show-cause notice which stated in Para 2 thereof that it was not considered necessary to have a formal enquiry whereas in the statement of allegations it was mentioned that the appellant threatened the Enquiry Committee and tried to hamper the enquiry proceedings. On the other hand, in the impugned order it was clearly mentioned that the Enquiry Committee had held him responsible for committing fraud. He argued that, in fact, no regular enquiry was held and he was dismissed on the basis of a fact-finding enquiry which was in violation of an established law (PLJ 2002 SC 525) that no major punishment could be given on the basis of a fact-finding enquiry. He argued that it has been admitted in the objections that he was not even provided with a copy of the fact-finding enquiry and not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses as he had not asked for it. He further argued that others who were directly involved such as the Station Master who had been held responsible and himself made good the loss were dealt with leniently as the punishment awarded to one of them, Mr. Qaiser Ali who was removed from service was modified to reduction in pay sale vide General Manager's order dated 13.1.2003 for the consideration that being originally a fire-arm and posted as LDC in the Pension Section at Khanewal station he was new to the job. Mr. Qaiser Ali was actually assigned the duty in connection with disbursement of pension at the station whereas the appellant as Naib Qasid who had nothing to do with the pension work was punished on the false charge of filling up of the forms which he denied to have done.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that an enquiry was conducted wherein a number of retired employees had given statements that the appellant came to them to get their pension Form No, 5 filled for them and that he had in his custody all the relevant documents of pension of Mr. Bashir Hussain and both the Enquiry Officers "believed" that on the basis of statements of witnesses, the appellant was the prime culprit in engineering the fraud. He argued that in view of the enquiry thus having been conducted, the contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant between the show-cause notice and the statement of allegations didn't hold ground and that the appellant was properly punished for his role as determined through the enquiry rather than any mala fide as alleged by the appellant.
5. Having heard the arguments and perused the record we have reached the conclusion that the appellant was declared involved in the case merely on the basis of statements of some witnesses without there being any in-depth enquiry by giving 'him full opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine such witnesses. It is certainly arguable as to how a Naib Qasid ordinarily having nothing to do with the disbursement of pension was held to be mainly responsible for a fraud while the officials directly dealing with the work had accepted the responsibility and made good the loss also. One of them, Mr. Qaisar Ali who was responsible for maintaining the person files was also let off with a lesser punishment by Appellate Authority on the basis that being a fire-arm, he was asked to disburse pension and being new to the job, he happened to fail in properly discharging his duties. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that a major punishment of dismissal from service was ab initio illegal and that the fact-finding enquiry could not be considered a substitute of regular enquiry as per the case law cited by him. If the officials directly involved could be treated leniently, there is every justification for extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant who being Naib Qasid posted in Pension Section had nothing to. do with the disbursement of pension.
5. In view of the forgoing we accept the appeal and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant into service from the date of the impugned order with all consequential benefits. The department would, however, be at a liberty to hold de novo proceedings to be completed within a period of six months and after observing due process. In case they do so, the consequential benefits would depend on the outcome of such proceedings.
6. No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.