' SULTAN MEHMOOD KHATTAK (MEMBER).--- This appeal has been filed by Faham Dil, appellant, against the order dated 24-3-2009, conveyed on 10-4-2009, whereby the penalty of stoppage of three annual increments has been imposed on him and also against the order dated 3-8-2009, whereby his review petition has been rejected. It has been prayed that on acceptance of this appeal, the impugned order dated 24-3-2009 and 3-8-2009 may be set aside with the directions to the respondents to restore the increments. Any other remedy which this Tribunal deems fit may also be awarded in favour of the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Deputy Director of Agriculture (Information), now Senior Instructor (BPS-18) Agriculture Training Institute. Peshawar, was proceeded against departmentally on the basis of certain acts/omissions and irregularities committed by him under the N.-W.F.P Removal from Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000. He was served with charge sheet and statement of allegations to which he submitted his detailed reply. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted and after inquiry, final show cause notice was served upon him which was also replied by him. On 24-3-2009 the impugned order was passed vide which the penalty of stoppage of three annual increments was imposed on him. The said order was endorsed by the D.G. Agriculture Extension on 31-3-2009 and finally received by the appellant on 10-4-2009. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant submitted a review petition on 20-4-2009 but the same has been rejected on 3-8-2009. Hence this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned order is against law/rules; that no chance of full defence was provided to the appellant during inquiry and all the inquiry proceedings were carried out one-sided; that neither any opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the appellant nor any statement of relevant person/official was recorded in his presence; that the impugned order is against the spirit of basic law as no period has been specified; that the basic complaint on the basis of which action was taken by the Authority has been held as result of personal grudges and some previous litigations between the appellant and complainant, therefore, after such findings of the Inquiry Officer, the impugned penalty is baseless; that no embezzlement/misappropriation/fraud or misuse of Government money has been proved against the appellant, but only drawing of advance budget for repair of vehicles was reported against him for which the appellant could not be punished and that for drawing of advance money, proper approval was obtained from the competent authority and proper pre-audit of A.-G. Office was done, which shows that other officers were also equally responsible in the drawing of advance money, but they were left altogether and only the appellant was penalized which amounts to discrimination.
3. The respondents, through their written reply, resisted the appeal on the ground that the appellant has drawn a big money amounting to Rs,164042 in advance which is very much objectionable and most of the time creates problems in maintaining transparency in Government accounts; that proper inquiry was conducted into the matter and according to the report of Inquiry Officer, the said charge proved against the appellant; that full opportunity of personal interview/hearing was given to him and that the imposition of penalty on the appellant is correct and in accordance with law/rules. The appellant, in rebuttal, also filed his rejoinder.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant ahs not been treated in accordance with/rules on the subject because the process of inquiry has been conducted in questionnaire from which practice has been condemned by the superior courts. The learned counsel further contended that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the appellant and that neither any witness has been examined in presence of the appellant nor any chance of cross-examination has been given to him. He also argued that the Authority while imposing the impugned penalty on the appellant has not specified the period which is also violative of relevant law/rules. The learned counsel maintained that proper approval regarding drawing of advance money has been obtained by the appellant from the competent authority and that no embezzlement/ misappropriation of government money has been proved against the appellant.
As such, the impugned order being illegal, against the spirit of basic law and norms of justice liable to set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned A.-G.P. Argued that the appeal is time-barred; that no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against a minor penalty; that full-fledged inquiry has been conducted in the matter; that the appellant was provided opportunity of personal hearing; and that the appellant was found guilty of the charge, therefore, after observance of all codal formalities, the impugned punishment was awarded to him. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. The Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, tends to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, no proper procedure has been adopted by the respondent-department. In the instant case, the inquiry has been conducted in questionnaire form which practice has been condemned by the superior courts. Neither any witness has been examined in presence of the appellant no any opportunity of cross-examination was provided to him to defend himself properly. Besides, no period has been mentioned by the Authority while awarding the impugned penalty to the appellant which is in clear violation of the relevant law/rules. Proper approval with regard to drawing of advance money was obtained from the competent authority. No embezzlement/ misappropriation of government money has been proved against the appellant. In the circumstances, the impugned order is nullity in the eyes of law. The appellant has thus made out a case for indulgence of the Tribunal.
8. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside, with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the record.