' NAZAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH (MEMBER).--- Appellant has been aggrieved by respondent No,2's order dated 4-10-2002 whereby he has been imposed major penalty of demotion to lower post of Deputy Manager. Appellant's departmental appeal dated 16-10-2002 was rejected by respondent No,1 vide his order dated 21-10-2002 obliging the appellant to file this appeal under section 4, read with section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. Brief history of the case is that the appellant was working on the post of Manager when he was appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide respondent No,3's order dated 9-5-2002 to conduct inquiry against one Ghulam Abbas Bhatti Dozer Operator P.No,338109 Makli Limestone Project. Appellant issued inquiry notice to the accused Ghulam Abbas Bhatti on 24-5-2002 and informed him to furnish written defence. After seven (7) days of the receipt of the statement of allegation and charges, the accused official, Ghulam Abbas Bhatti submitted an application on 27-5-2002 complaining to the respondent No,2 that there was no mention of the name, designation, department of the Inquiries as to whom he could submit his written defence. He also endorsed copies of the said application to respondent No,2. On this complaint, respondent No,2 ordered disciplinary action against the appellant under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. He was issued a statement of allegations and charges on 11-6-2002. The statement of allegations contained the following charges:--- "That you were appointed as Inquiry Officer vide No,MMD/ Admn./Enquiry 2002/1145 dated 9-5-2002 in the disciplinary case against Mr. Ghulam Abbas Bhatti, Dozer Operator (P.No,338109) but you served statement of allegation and Charges No,SPP/Admn/Enquiry/2002 dated 15-5-2002 upon the above accused worker without mentioning your complete particulars i,e, name, designation and department thereby creating confusion in the expeditious finalization of enquiry.
' That your above acts of gross negligence and dereliction of duty are prejudicial to good service discipline and unbecoming of an officer."
' Mr. Riazuddin Mirza, DGM/Incharge (Inspection) was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who issued him inquiry notice scheduled for 21-6-2002 at 1000 hours. On receipt of the statement of allegations, appellant vide his letter dated 17-6-2002 requested for providing original documents to enable him to submit his defence. The Inquiry Officer held him guilty as charged and accordingly the respondents issued a show-cause notice on 10-7-2002. Appellant in response to the said show-cause notice submitted reply on 19-7-2002 and denied the allegations. Respondents did not find the reply of the appellant to the show-cause notice satisfactory and imposed upon him the major penalty of demotion to lower post of Deputy Manager and fixed his pay at Rs,16,288 in the scale of Rs,9280-584-20960 with effect from 4-10-2002.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously arguing the appeal stated that there were no rules under which Inquiry Officer could be penalized for any lapses conducted during his conduct of inquiry and in this regard he relied on the ruling reported in 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1521 in the case of Sultan Azam v. Government of Punjab where the Honourable Justice Amir Alam Khan of Lahore High Court held as under:--- "(5) It would be noted that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for misconducting the inquiry by not consulting and collecting any record or the relevant evidence having bearing on the case. It is further alleged that the petitioner had admitted Wore the Deputy Secretary (Tech.) that the inquiry report was not drafted by him. The two charges levelled, against the petitioner are pertinently directed against his conduct as Inquiry Officer which could, at the most, entail an order for de novo inquiry of the report submitted in that regard could be set aside by the authorized officer but it is nowhere provided under the law to issue him a charge-sheet in that regard for not acted as a judicial officer and conducted the inquiry as such."
' Appellant's learned counsel also relied on the judgment of FST in Appeal No,941(K)CE of 2002 dated 5-3-2004 wherein it was held as under:-- "(5) However, the rules do not provide for disciplinary action against an Inquiry Officer for his failure to conduct enquiry in a proper manner. The standard procedure in such cases is that the competent authority re-assigns the enquiry to another officer to hold de novo proceedings."
' The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that inquiry conducted in question-answer form was invalid in the light of the ruling reported in 2001 TD (Services) 361. He also further assailed the inquiry proceedings on the ground that it was conducted in a summary manner and in this regard cited rulings reported in 2000 PLC (C.S.) 270 and 2000 PLC (C.S.) 1252. He also pointed out that inquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules as material witnesses were not examined and in this regard cited rulings reported in 1985 PLC (C.S.) 518 and 2003 PLC (C.S.) 353. He further alleged that the proceedings against the appellant suffer from another infirmity i,e, inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant along with show-cause notice which is mandatory and in this regard cited ruling reported in PLD 1981 SC 176. He further pointed out that the appellate order rejecting appellant's departmental appeal was a non-speaking order which is in violation of section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 and the ruling reported in 2000 PLC (C.S.) 857. He further argued that same authority cannot review its own order and in this regard relied on the ruling reported in 1987 PLC (C.S.) 875.
4. The learned counsel of the respondent assailed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that inquiry procedure was not violative of the prescribed rules and inquiry conducted in question answer form was not relevant as the officer had been given full opportunity to vindicate his position and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant and in this regard cited ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1990 SCMR 1435. He also further stated that the appellant fully participated in the inquiry and he cannot now claim that he was not given full opportunity to defend the allegations. He also pointed out that non-supplying of the inquiry report did not cause any prejudice to the appellant's defence and in this regard relied on the ruling reported in 1988 SCMR 1352. He also pointed out that the respondent's appellate order did not violate section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and stated that it was a self-contained order.
5. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that no reason has been given for rejecting the appellant's contentions made in .Eply to the Show-Cause Notice.
6. We have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the record and the citations.
7. The record indicates that the appellant has been proceeded against for his lapses in the conduct of inquiry against Ghulam Abbas Bhatti, Dozer Operator and his only fault was that he failed to mention his name, designation and department while issuing statement of allegation and charge-sheet to the accused, Ghulam Abbas Bhatti. The inquiry conducted against the appellant held him guilty for this lapse. Appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice denied these allegations and stated the following defence: "(3) It is further stated that upon enquiry from Incharge (A&P) regarding office copy of the under reference SOA-C, which the Chairman wanted to see, I asked Mr. Shahid Zaidi, DM for the provision of the same. He provided the office ask duly signed and stamped. I asked him, how come the office copy is stamped, whereas the copy marked to the accused was sent without stamp. He clarified that he forgot to stamp the statement marked to the accused. He later on erased the stamp by applying white fluid and that copy was accordingly provided to Incharge (A&P). This act was done on my instructions to keep the matter transparent. Mr. Iftikhar DM, Mr. Sameen Khan, Skilled Worker of SPP are witnesses to this whole episode. The incident is narrated to clarify my position that I am not to be blamed for not affixing stamp on the copy endorsed to the accused, rather, it was an act of omission on the part of Mr. Shahid Zaidi."
8. This explanation was, however, not given due weightage it deserved. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the inquiry proceedings against the appellant and in this regard his main contention was that there were no rules under which an Inquiry Officer could be proceeded against for his lapses. Secondly, inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant along with the show- cause notice and thirdly that the original as well as appellate order are non-speaking orders. We tend to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that there is obviously no rule under which any Inquiry Officer could be proceeded against for any lapses which he may have committed during the Inquiry as mentioned in the FST's judgment in Appeal No,941(K)CE of 2002. The standard procedure in such cases is that the inquiry is ordered to be conducted de novo. The judgment of the Lahore High Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is also very relevant and the law laid down therein still holds good. Furthermore, the show-cause notice was not accompanied by the inquiry report which is a mandatory provision and cannot be dispensed with as it would impair the appellant's defence because he shall not be able to ascertain the grounds on which the Inquiry Officer has arrived at his conclusions. Failure of the respondent to supply him a copy of the inquiry report precluded him from contesting any deficiency in the inquiry report through his reply to the show-cause notice. Honourable Supreme Court in its ruling reported in the case of Vice- President (Admn.) National Bank of Pakistan v. Basharat Ali and others reported in 1996 SCMR 201 has stressed that the inquiry report need to be sent to. Au accused civil employee along with the show-cause notice.
9. Further, appellant was imposed major penalty vide respondent's order dated 4-10-2002 which, inter alia, reads as under:- "Pakistan Steel (Central Administration)
' No, CAP/Mgr(003204)2002/PA/A2323 Dated 4th October, 2002 Memorandum Sub: Demotion to a lower post.
' Mr. Zahir Shah, Manager, (P.No,003204) of Slag Proceedings Plant is informed that as a result of domestic enquiry, he has been held guilty of the charges as contained in the statement of allegation and charges No,ID/ENQ- ZS/2002/24-7 dated 11-6-2002. He was served with a Show- Cause Notice No,A&PEnq/Cell/2002/1875 dated 10-7-2002 giving him an opportunity to show cause as to why a major, penalty should not be inflicted upon him, which was replied by him on 16-7- 2002. He was also granted personal hearing by the competent authority to explain his conduct, but he failed to justify his acts. Therefore, the competent authority, after careful examination of enquiry report, his reply to show-cause notice and facts of the case, has decided that he may be demoted to position of Deputy Manager with immediate effect.
(2) Accordingly, he is hereby demoted to the post of Deputy Manager (PSE-III) with immediate effect. His pay in the demoted post will be fixed accordingly to the rules on the subject.
(Sd.) Hamid Pervez Incharge (A&P)
Mr. Zahir Shah, Deputy Manager (P.No,003204)"
' The perusal of the above order clearly indicates that it does not give any reason for disregarding appellant's defence while imposing major penalty of demotion to a lower post. This is a serious lapse which is in violation of section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 and the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellate order while rejecting appellant's departmental appeal which is also reproduced hereunder will also indicate that it is not a speaking order in terms of section 24-A (ibid).
"Pakistan Steel (Central Administration)
(Personnel-A Section)
' No,CAP-DM-04(003204)2002/PA/A2505 Dated 21-10-2002 Memorandum ' With reference to his appeal dated 16-10-2002, Mr. Zahir Shah, Deputy Manager (P.No,003204) of Slag Processing Plant is informed that his request for restoration of Manager's post was given due consideration by the competent authority by the same has not been acceded to.
(Sd.) Noor A. Memon for Incharge (A&P)
' Mr. Zahir Shah, D.M.(P.No,003204), Slag Processing Plant, Pakistan Steel."
10. In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 4-10-2002 and appellate order 21-10-2002 and direct the respondents to restore the appellant to his original post of Manager from the date of impugned order i,e, 4-10-2002 with all consequential benefits.
11. No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.