Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--The above captioned appeals, with the leave of this Court, filed by Muhammad Ismail Shahid and Muhammad Sharif, appellants, arise out of a common judgment, dated 16.3.2006 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dismissing service Appeal Nos, 2612 and 2656 of 2005 preferred by the appellants.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that while posted as Naib Tehsildar Settlement, Cantt. Lahore, appellant Muhammad Ismail Shahid demanded illegal gratification through his Reader appellant Muhammad Sharif, from one Muhammad Hussain, complainant, for attestation of mutations of complainant's land. A complainant was made to District Co-ordination Officer, Lahore, in pursuance whereof disciplinary proceedings were initiated and appellants were served with charge sheets. The replies of the appellants, having been found unsatisfactory, they were awarded penalty of reduction in their ranks from the post of Naib Tehsildar to Stenographer and from the post of Junior Clerk to Naib Qasid, respectively. Appellants filed departmental appeals which did not succeed. Appeals of the appellants before the Tribunal also met the same fate necessitating the filing of instant appeals.
3. Leave was granted in both the cases by order dated 14-112006 to consider the contentions, inter-alia, that in the disciplinary proceedings carried out by the respondents the appellants were not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the department and that adequate opportunity was also not afforded to the appellants to produce their evidence; that the statement of allegation was also not provided to them and that various contentions raised by the appellants were not attended to by the Tribunal.
4. Sheikh Masood Akhtar, Advocate representing the appellants, bitterly criticized the impugned judgment and attempted to argue that same has been recorded in a mechanical manner without application of independent judicious mind and in total disregard to the law on the point and that evidence recorded prior to the regular inquiry, in absence of the appellants, could not be treated as evidence of any worth, as a result whereof right of cross-examination has been denied to the appellants.
5. Raja M. Saeed Akram, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, representing the respondents, on the other hand, refuted the arguments of learned counsel' for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment on the grounds more or less the same incorporated in the judgment itself.
6. Having heard the arguments from both sides in the light of the material on file, we find that submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants carry weight and must prevail. Learned Tribunal has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeals of the appellants as in the absence of service of statements of allegations, required under Section 5(1)(a) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the proceedings were void and nullity in the eyes of law as appellants were not confronted with the same. Again the evidence recorded prior to the regular inquiry in the absence of appellants could not be treated as evidence of any value as right of cross-examining the witnesses has been denied to the appellants, resulting in manifest injustice.
We also find that inquiry was not conducted according to the mandatory provisions of law so much so statements of allegations were not supplied to the appellants to meet the charges.
7. In view of the above, appeals are allowed, impugned judgment is 'set aside and appellants are directed to be reinstated to their positions with all back benefits. However, the department shall be at liberty to initiate fresh inquiry in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. No order as to costs.