' RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).--- The facts of the case are that the appellant joined Government Service in 1973 after qualifying Central Superior Service held in 1972. After completion of the training at the Academy for Administrative Training at Lahore he was assigned to the Military Land and Cantonment Group. Ever since then he had served as Cantonment Executive Officer/Military and Estate Officer in various Cantonment in the country with distinction. On 4-3-2000 he was served with the following charge-sheet:-- 19-2-2000 CHARGE-SHEET
(1) WHEREAS, you Mr. Sultan Khalid Masud Khattak, Cantonment Executive Officer (CEO), Clifton Cantonment while serving as CEO Quetta Cantonment are alleged to have committed the following irregularities that you:--
(a) Transferred Plot No,42 Shahbaz Town Phase-I, Quetta Cantonment in favour of Mst. Saeeda Khatoon despite the fact that auction of above plot was not approved by Government.
(b) Executed lease deed of Plot No,42 Shahbaz Town Phase-I, Quetta Cantonment on 28th March, 1985 in favour of Mst. Saeeda Khatoon despite the fact that auction of above plot was not approved by Government.
(c) Approved the building plan of above fake Plot No,42 on 30th December, 1985.
(d) Transferred Plot No,43 Shahbaz Town Phase-I, Quetta Cantonment in favour of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Magsi son of Haji Masal Khan despite the fact that its auction was not approved by Government.
(e) Executed lease deed in respect of above referred fake Plot No,43 in the name of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Magsi on 28th March, 1985.
(2) AND WHEREAS, the negligence and commission of above stated irregularities on your part constitutes misconduct and inefficiency in terms of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Rules and, it has been decided to hold an inquiry against you, under Rule 5(1)(ii) of the Rules.
(3) AND WHEREAS, the Authorized Officer is of the opinion that the aforesaid charges, if established, would call for a major penalty specified in Rule 4(1)(b) of the Rules, which includes dismissal from service.
(4) AND WHEREAS, Sh. Ikramullah, Joint Secretary-II, Defence Division is appointed as the "Inquiry Officer", in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 5 of the Rules, to conduct proceedings of inquiry into the aforesaid charges.
(5) NOW, THEREFORE, you Mr. Sultan Khalid Masud Khattak, Cantonment Executive Officer, Clifton Cantonment are required under Rule 6(2) of the Rules to put in your written defence to the said Inquiry Officer within 14 days of the receipt of this charge-sheet and also state whether you desire to be heard in person or lead any evidence in defence. In case no reply is received within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that you have no defence to offer and the charges levelled against you will be decided ex parte on the basis of the evidence available on record.
(6) The statement of allegation containing details of the charges is attached. Ltd.-Gen. (Retd.)
(Nasim Rana)
Secretary to the Government of Pakistan Authorized Officer
2. The appellant refuted the aforesaid charges. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted and one Mr. Ikramullah the then Joint Secretary Ministry of Defence was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On the basis of this inquiry the Authorized Officer issued show-cause notice, dated 19-9-2000. The appellant replied to the said show-cause notice but his reply was not found satisfactory and therefore, major penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the appellant against which the appellant referred a departmental appeal but the same was rejected, hence this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 with the prayer to set aside the dismissal of the appellant from service and direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back-benefits with effect from 16th February, 2001.
3. The respondent in their written comments have stated that the major penalty of dismissal from service had rightly been awarded to the appellant and that his dismissal is quite justified and that the decision of dismissal against him was taken after affording full opportunity of defence to the appellant and after completing all the formalities as required under the law.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant have contended that the appellant rendered services for 28 years service with unblemished record. He further contended that in substance two allegations were levelled against the appellant and the auction of plot and the payment of the price was done during the period of Khan Haroon Rasikh who was CEO Quetta from 30-1-1979 to 24-4-1982. He also contended that one Aminuddin, Assistant Land Superintendent and the allegations against him had no substance. He contended that the auction of plots and the payment of the price was done during the period of Khan Haroon Rashikh who was CEO, Quetta from 30-1-1979 to 24-4-1982. He contended that one Mr. Aminuddin the Assistant Land Superintendent admitted the facts that the lack sanction of Federal Government was not pointed out to the appellant deliberately for which conduct of major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. He further contended that the statement of allegation and report of the Inquiry Officer which according to the appellant is based on conjecture and surmises in advertence and irregularities by the appellant if any and further that there is no charge of illegal gratification, embezzlement, misappropriation or misconduct. He contended that the major penalty of dismissal from Government service imposed upon the appellant cannot be sustained on facts. He contended that the appellant cannot be charged for committing acts of inefficiency and misconduct as inefficiency and misconduct are two separate and distinct charges which cannot be amalgamated into one charge as erroneously done by the Authorized Officer. Second charge the charge-sheet is 'defective inasmuch as it does not contain any detail of inefficiency. He contended that even the statement of allegation no details have been provided to support allegations contained in the charge-sheet. He contended that according to Rule 2(4) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, the conduct. Means prejudicial to service discipline or contrary to the Government Service (Conduct Rules), 1964. Fourthly there was no evidence before the Inquiry Officer to substantiate the charges to prove the ingredients of misconduct. Therefore, in view of the serious omission to provide details to substantiate the charges, the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant under the rules are invalid. He further contended that the present appeal has been filed against the order (Notification) (Annexure "A") to the paper book, dated 16-2-2001 whereby the appellant was dismissed from service on the charges of committing act of misconduct and inefficiency through a charge-sheet, dated 19-2-2000 issued to the appellant under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 in respect of irregularities made regarding Plots Nos.42 and 43 Shahbaz Town, Phase-I, Quetta. The appellant'preferred departmental appeal against the major penalty of dismissal from service to the President of Pakistan through Secretary, Defence on 14-3-2001. Since the decision in the appeal was not conveyed to the appellant within the statutory period of 90 days she was therefore, constrained to file the present appeal on 13-7-2001.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that major- penalty of dismissal from service had rightly been imposed on the appellant and that the dismissal of the appellant from service had been taken after affording him full opportunity of defence and also after completing all the formalities as required under the law.
7. We have come to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has misread the evidence and come to the wrong conclusion in respect of the responsibility of the appellant. The respondent have not attributed corruption to the appellant; that there is no adverse report in his long service career. The auctions of Plots Nos.42 and 43, Shahbaz Town were held in 1979 before posting of the appellant and bids were accepted by the Cantonment Board by Resolution No,10, dated 21-7-1979 and the prices were approved by the Board which was deposited by the bidders. This shown that all vital steps of auction of plots and the transaction took place much before the appellant took over charge as CEO, Quetta, therefore, no liability in this respect falls on the shoulder of the appellant. No evidence relating to the illegal gratification, embezzlement etc. Is against the appellant. The case of the appellant is identical to the case to Abdul Hameed Janjua in Appeal No,508(K)(C.S.) of 2001 which judgment was also upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P. No,2491 of 2002. Similar judgment was passed in the case of Shoukat Raza Malik in Appeal No,386(K)(C.S.) of 2001 who was also CEO Quetta. This judgment was also upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P. No,1754 of 2002 and the said employees Abdul Hameed Janjua and Shoukat Raza Malik were reinstated in service with all back-benefits. The learned Standing Counsel who was present on 28-4-2005 was asked to show as to how the case of the present appellant is distinguishable from the case of Abdul Majid Januja and Shaukat Raza Malik, the learned Standing Counsel requested for time to consult the concerned department to answer this question and the matter was adjourned. On 10- 12-2005 when the matter was fixed for rehearing, the D.R. Muhammad Azam Khan, Assistant Director-General (BPS-17) who was present in Court conceded the case of the appellant is identical to the cases of Abdul Majeed Janjua and Shaukat Raza Malik.
8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Inquiry Officer has misread the evidence and come to the wrong conclusion in respect of the responsibility of the appellant. The fact that the respondents have not attributed corruption to the appellant, that there is no adverse report in his long service career; that the appellant had taken notice of the large scale irregularities in the disposal of valuable Can'. Board land by his predecessors and brought it to the notice to the Government which should have weighed with the Inquiry Officer as well as the Authorized Officer in favour of the appellant. The only adverse conclusion that could be drawn in the disciplinary proceedings was that having taken notice of extensive bungling, the appellant should have exercised abundant caution and personally verified the ,cases. The Cantonment Executive Officer has to perform multifarious duties. It was natural for the appellant to be persuaded by the report of the staff accepted by his immediate predecessor and confirmations letters issued under the signatures of another predecessor. It was also relevant for him to be influenced by the resolution of the Building Committee of August, 1989. These actions establish sufficient evidence to exonerate the appellant of the charges. A single lapse in a long service career should not be allowed to bring blot on a spotless career.
9. We have come to conclusion that the case of the appellant is identical to the case of Abdul Majeed Janjua in Appeal No,508(K)(C.S.) of 2001 which judgment was also upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P. No,2491 of 2002. Similar judgment was also passed in the case of Shoukat Raza Malik in Appeal No,386(K)(C.S.) of 2001 who was also CEO, Quetta. This judgment was also upjield by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P. No,1754 of 2002 and said employees were reinstated in service with all back-benefits.
10. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant shall be reinstated with effect from the date of his dismissal from service and allowed all the back-benefits.
' No order as to costs.
11. Copies of judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover under Rule 21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.