Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, J.--This order shall dispose of Civil Appeal Nos, 1124, 1125 & 1126 of 2009 as they are directed against a consolidated judgment dated 10.4.2009 vide which the learned Federal Service Tribunal allowed the appeals of the respondents and directed that the Respondents Nazar Hussain (Security Inspector) and Mazharul Hassan (Assistant Driller) shall stand restored to their original posts and respondent Muhammad Fayyaz Umer's penalty of compulsory retirement was converted into a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years.
2. Facts giving rise to the instant appeals are that the respondents while serving in Oil & Gas Development Corporation were proceeded against on charges of misconduct mainly on the allegation that they committed theft of drill pipes joints of various sizes / descriptions totaling 127.
The allegations were denied: However, the Inquiry Officer found them guilty. Regarding the same alleged transaction, the driver who transported the afore-referred material was also proceeded against and found guilty (though it is not mentioned in the impugned judgment but it is not disputed by appellants' learned counsel). The Competent Authority on the basis of the inquiry report awarded all the four employees, major penalty of dismissal from service. The Service Tribunal in the earlier appeal of the respondents vide its order dated 4.1.2003 directed as follows: "17....impugned orders mentioned against each appellant as detailed above are set aside and the appellants are reinstated into service with effect from the dates they were dismissed from service with the direction to the department to hold fresh disciplinary proceedings against the appellants as per law within 4 months of the date of this order, removing the legal lacunae as observed and summarized in para-14 of the order also taking into consideration the circumstances leading to the acquittal of appellant Haji Nazar Hussain from the criminal case as contained in Court order dated 3.11.1999 which is placed on record in Appeal No, 54(r)CE/2000. Back benefits and the question of retention or otherwise of the appellants in the service of the respondent department shall depend on the findings of the de novo disciplinary proceedings."
3. Pursuant to the inquiry report dated 12.9.2003 the Competent Authority awarded minor penalty to Nazar Hussain (Security Inspector) and Mazharul Hassan (Assistant Driller), demoted them to the next lower post whereas the respondent Muhammad Fayyaz Umer was awarded major penalty of compulsory retirement. This was challenged in appeal which stands allowed vide the impugned judgment dated 10.4.2009 mainly on two grounds i,e, that the major penalty of demotion with regard to two respondents did not specify the period and secondly the de novo inquiry was not conducted as per law i,e, in terms of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Federal Service Tribunal was not tenable in law as the respondents were not being governed by statutory rules; that the appellant-Company (Oil and Gas Development Corporation Limited) came into being in terms of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961; that though regulations were framed under the said Ordinance for regulations the service of the employees, called the Oil and Gas Service Regulations, but with the repeal of the former Ordinance by the Oil and Gas Development Corporation Reorganization Ordinance, 2001, those regulations also stood repealed or they lost their statutory character even if they continue to govern the employees. He further contended that because of the repeal of the 1961 Ordinance (No, XXXVII), the regulations framed in 1994 lost their statutory character, de novo inquiry was not required to be conducted under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the Oil and Gas Service Regulations, 1994, still remained in the field as after the repeal of 1961 Ordinance and promulgation of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Ordinance, 2001, no fresh rules or regulations have been framed and that being so, the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, was applicable and the mandate of the remand order passed by the Tribunal dated 4.1.2003 required that the de novo inquiry should be conducted under the said ordinance; that having not been done, the learned Tribunal rightly interfered, set aside the penalty and directed reinstatement of Nazar Hussain and Mazharul Hassan and converted the major penalty of Muhammad Fayyaz Umer in to minor penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years: He further submitted that on merits it has never been the case of the appellant-Company that the alleged misconduct of the respondents caused any pecuniary loss.
He lastly submitted that one of the co-accused in the inquiry namely Baz Khan, driver, who allegedly transported the stolen pipes, was reinstated by the Company which is evident from the order of the Service Tribunal dated 27.9.2002 in Service Appeal No, 85(R)/2000, a copy of which was placed on record.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment.
7. With the repeal of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, and the advent of the new law, the Corporation was converted into a public limited company vide Oil and Gas Development Corporation Ordinance, 2001 called the Oil and Gas Development Reorganization Ordinance. It is not denied that pursuant to the repeal and promulgation of the new Ordinance referred to above, no fresh regulations or service rules were enacted. Section 5 of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Ordinance, 2001, specifically provides that the officers, workmen or other employees of the Corporation on the incorporation of the Company in terms of the afore-referred Ordinance shall be deemed to be the employees of the Company and shall have same rights and privileges.
8. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act provides as follows:-- "24. Continuation of orders, etc. issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted. Where any [Central Act] or Regulation is, after the commencement of this Act, repealed and reenacted without modification, then unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any [appointment, notification], order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, [made or] issued under the provisions so reenacted [and when any] [Central Act] or Regulation, which, by a notification under Section 5 or 5A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 (XIV of 1874), or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has, by a subsequent notification been withdrawn from and re-extended to such area or any part thereof the provisions of such Act or Regulation shall be deemed to have been repealed and re- enacted in such area or part within the meaning of this section."
9. The afore-referred provision accords general recognition to the principle that the regulations and bye-laws made under the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been made and issued under the new provisions of Act, unless of-course fresh rules or regulations framed. Admittedly no fresh rules have been framed and on Court's query, learned counsel for the appellants candidly admitted that the Service Regulations of 1994 still govern the field. That being so the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance No, XVII of 2000, would be applicable because Section 11 of the same specifically mandates that "the provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973), and the rules made there under and any other law for time being in force". This is in line with the law laid down by this Court in an unreported judgment, a copy of which has been placed on record by respondents' learned counsel, titled State Bank of Pakistan through Board SBP and others Vs. Agha Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan (CP 318/2005) wherein in paragraph 12, it was held as follows:-- "12. So far as the third contention, the same is misconceived. The said non-statutory Regulations cannot be said to be special law when the Ordinance No, XVII of 2000 itself states vide Section 11 that it would over-ride all other laws notwithstanding any thing to contrary, consequently the said contention has also not merit and substance."
10. With regard to the question whether the Service Regulations framed in 1994 under the repeal of OH and Gas Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, were still is in vogue and has statutory force, this Court in CPs 1359 To 1361/2009 (which is a case of appellants' Company), specifically observed as under:-- "We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that the High Court did not take into account the provisions of Section 5 reproduced above. After having gone through the said provisions, we are not left in any manner of doubt that the Rules governing the petitioners in matters of employment, were the Rules of 1994. Since the said Rules have been incorporated into law through reference made by Section 5 of the Ordinance, the said Rules, if anything, are, elevated to a status even higher than that of mere statutory rates, which are framed under rule making powers granted by a statute."
11. Interestingly in the afore-referred case, the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant- Company (he was a different counsel) was that the afore-mentioned Service Regulations were statutory in character and the remedy lay before the Federal Service Tribunal.
12. In this view of the above, we are of the view that the employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company continue to be governed under the Service Regulations framed in 1994 unless of-course they are varied and amended or repealed as the case may be. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is not denied that the principal accused namely Baz Khan, who allegedly transported the joint pipes in question, was reinstated into service by the appellant-Department. Despite specific query, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out the pecuniary loss suffered by the Company and it is not denied that the alleged pipes were recovered and were restored to the Company.
13. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in these appeals as they neither raise any question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212 of the Constitution nor they point out any illegality to warrant interference. The appeals having no merits are accordingly dismissed.