' AHMED ALI SHAIKH, J.--- Through this petition the petitioner has prayed as under:--- "The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare the Office Order No,CEO/HESCO/M (HRM)/A2/C-8659-65 dated 8th May, 2007 issued by the respondent No,2 thereby imposing Major Penalty upon the petitioner as null and void and set aside the same with direction to the respondents to place the petitioner at the stage he was before imposition of the said Major Penalty and refund of amount due with further direction to the respondent not to recover any amount from the petitioner."
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in BPS-17 in the HESCO (WAPDA). On 31-3-2007 while petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager (Operation) Sub-Division, HESCO at Sukkur, he was served with a show cause notice issued by the respondent No,2, inter alia, on the following grounds:- "(a). You got installed a bogus Meter No,207792 at your residence located Kairpur City (jurisdiction of Opr: Sub-Division Luqman Khairpur) which was drawn through Mr. Zahid LS of Sub-Division Sukkur-II vide requisition No,101295 dated 12.2005(sic) and had been using electricity through the above said bogus meter intentionally and deliberately.
(b) You had drawn 300 meters PVC 4 Core (19/52) for installation of Pak Telecom connection, whereas on ground 200 meters PVC was installed. You have misappropriated the remaining 100 meters PVC valuing Rs,13000.
(c) You have also used 65 liters POL more than the prescribed limit causing loss of Rs,3,757 to the Company. Thus you are liable for recovery of (Rs,13,000)+ Rs,3,757=Rs,16,757.
(d) This clearly reflects your mala fide intention, ulterior motive and misuse of your position."
3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations levelled against him. Subsequently the respondent No,2 imposed the major penalty of reduction of two stages below in time scale for a period of two years and ordered recovery of Rs,16,757 being the loss allegedly sustained by the authority vide impugned order No,CEO/HESCO/M(HRM)/A2/C- 8659-65, dated 8-5-2007 under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000, which has been impugned in this petition.
4. The respondents have filed their comments/objections to the petition, in which they have denied the contents of petition and categorically stated that the proper enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. It was further pleaded that petitioner has participated in "Enquiry Proceedings" and was provided personal hearing and the impugned order was passed after observing required formalities and adopting proper procedure.
5. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of settled principle of law and without holding of "Regular Enquiry", therefore, the impugned order was illegal, unlawful and liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Syed Jawaid I. Bukhari, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the regular inquiry was conducted before passing of the impugned order and opportunity of personal hearing was also provided to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us a copy of "Enquiry Report" dated 26-1-2007, which was conducted under a committee comprising of Mr. K.B. Qureshi, Chief Engineer (Power) HESCO, Sukkur and Mr. Shamsuddin Shaikh, Manager, (Operation Circle) HESCO, Sukkur being its Member.
7. We have gone through the contents of Enquiry Report, which reveal that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and he was confronted with the material purportedly including all allegations levelled against him and his answers. The question asked by the Members of the Enquiry Committee and the answers given were incorporated in the Enquiry Proceedings.
8. We have perused the Enquiry Proceedings which has been placed before us. After considering the same we are of the considered view that the petitioner has no case of intervention by this Court as after proper enquiry as required in law, the impugned order, has been passed which order was passed on the basis of proper material.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we have dismissed the above petition by our short order dated 25-11- 2009.