SYED BILAL AHMED (MEMBER).--- Appellant has assailed the appellate impugned order, dated 30-1- 2008 through which major punishment of compulsory retirement was reduced to penalty of "reduction in post and scale for two years".
2. Brief facts of the case as given in the memo. Of appeal and the amended appeal are that the appellant was appointed as LDC on 11-4-1977. He was promoted to the post of Works Accountant (BPS-16). Show-cause notice, dated 2-12-2005 along with statement of allegation was served on the appellant. Formal inquiry was dispensed with in the said show-cause notice. The appellant denied the allegation. However, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him vide impugned order, dated 3-9-2007. Departmental appeal was submitted on 12-9-2007. The appellate authority vide order, dated 30-1-2008 reduced the penalty to "reduction in post and scale for two years".
3. The impugned order has been assailed inter alia on the following grounds:--- "(i) That formal inquiry was necessary before imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement.
Reliance placed on 2007 SCM R 152.
(ii) That the impugned order was passed without giving personal hearing to the appellant which was violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. Reliance was placed on 2001 SCM R 2018.
(iii) That the approval of 218 trees were given by the respectable respondent No,2 and the appellant conveyed the same approval to the concerned officials, those responsible officials should have taken care of the actual approval and recommendation, further the amount mentioned in the charge-sheet is equal to the cost of 218 trees only, had the number of trees increased the cost would have also increased and the mentioned cost was not appropriate if the number of trees will be considered as 918, therefore, no fault is at the part of the appellant if some irregularity was done it was not the responsibility of the appellant because he was not working in the field and whatever came on documents he passed it to the concerned officials, therefore, the impugned penalty is unjustified and liable to be set aside.
(iv) That the impugned order is against the F.R.-29 because the appellant has been reduced in post as well as in scale for two years whereas as per F.R.-29 the appellant can only be either reduced to a lower post or time scale both the penalties at the same time are unjustified and against the concept given by the F.R.-29."
4. In reply, the respondents stated as follows:--- "The appellant passed on the file put up for his co-accused Mr. Mujahid Ali, UDC to concerned executive officer viz. DEN-3 for sanction of 218 trees. Actually 918 trees were auctioned and AEN/BWU submitted bid statements showing highest bid 114,000 for 918 trees. On appearance, the instant documents evidence on the file, the competent authority had issued show-cause notice dispensing with further formal enquiry provided under section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as amended in 2001 alleging the appellant for slack supervision.
The appellant while submitting his defence neither cleared his position nor did he demand any enquiry in this case. The appellant not only defended his co-accused but also provided shelter on the guilty(?) committed in putting up the case by his dealing officials" (sic).
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. We have carefully perused the annexures attached by the appellant and the reply submitted by the respondents. The respondents served the following statement of charges on the appellant:--- "You, Mr. Anwar Ali, Work Accountant (BS-16), SD.S. Office, Multan are held responsible for slack supervision, inefficient working inasmuch as:---
(1) You failed to point out the discrepancies/deficiencies while processing the case to concerned DEN/DS in connection with the auction of dead/fallen trees in the Fort Abbas-Marrot Section of IOW/BWU as under:--
(a) There were 918 trees included in the bid statement received under AEN/BWU letter No,W- 27/Trees dated 29-12-2004 but indicated 218 No, of green trees in the covering letter with highest bid of Rs,1,14,000. Resultantly the competent authority considered the reasonable rates for 218 trees.
The position could have been otherwise if correct figure of 918 indicated in the recommendations.
' You are, therefore, being proceeded under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as amended under amendment No,V of 2001."
Perusal of record however, does not support the allegation. The notice issued by the Pakistan Railways, Division Office, Multan, dated 4-2-2005 clearly mentioned 218 trees with bid of Rs,1,14,000.
The same is reproduced as follows:--- "The Divisional Superintendent, P.R. Multan has accorded sanction to accept the highest bid of Mr. Faiz Rasool son of Shah Muhammad, resident of House No,3, Gali No,2, Muslim Colony, Bahawalnagar, I.D. No,31101-3361700-3 in connection remove/take away the dead/fallen down trees following in the section of IOW/BWU (FPA-KTAM) section according to the tender notice and as per terms and conditions as laid down:--- ' Highest bid for FPA-KTAM Rs,1,14,000 total Nos. Of trees 218 Nos. Two hundred and eighteen Nos.
Trees."
7. At the bar, the leained counsel for the respondents was also asked to submit documenta0 proof in support of the allegation that 918 trees were cut. He failed' to satisfy the Court with any documentary evidence i.e, sanction letter of award of contract etc. The document attached by the respondents dated 29-12-2004 titled auction dead/fallen down trees clearly mentioned cutting of 218 trees at bid rate of Rs,1,14,000 at serial No,3 thereof. Another document attached by the respondents dated 31-1-2005 mentioned similar figures with similar amount at serial No,3 thereof.
8. The impugned order is clearly in violation of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme. Court cited by the appellant as enquiry was not conducted to establish disputed facts, before imposition of major penalty. The respondents have also miserably failed to substantiate the charge against the appellant. The appellate impugned order is also violative of F.R.29. The same reproduced as follows:- "F.R.29. If a Government servant is, on account of misconduct inefficiency, reduced to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in his tim,e-scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether, on restoration, it shall operate to postpone future increments and if so, to what extent."
The appellate authority could impose the penalty of reduction to lower grade or post or to a lower stage in the time scale. Secondly, the appellate authority was required to clearly specify the post or scale of reduction. The impugned order is patently violative of FR-29 and is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is accepted. The appellant is reinstated in service with full back-benefits.
9. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.