JUDGMENT SAYED MEHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBER -- The appellant through this appeal has challenged order dated 5.4.2002, whereby he was removed from service under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Against the said punishment, appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 21.4.2002, which having been rejected on 10.8.2002, allegedly conveyed on 25.5.2005; hence, this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted as Muawin, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 6.2.2002 alongwith statement of allegations. The appellant rebutted the charges vide reply dated 7.3.2002 stating that the date of birth of the appellant was wrongly mentioned by the concerned School and the appellant had not cheated the department. The said reply of the appellant did not find favour with the concerned authorities and he was removed from service; hence, this appeal.
2-A. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as departmental representative on behalf of the respondents and perused the record including the comments.
3. Admittedly, regular departmental inquiry was not held against the appellant. While awarding major punishment, regular departmental inquiry should have been conducted to un-veil the truth, In presence of serious allegations, having been levelled against the appellant, as mentioned in the show-cause notice, regular departmental inquiry cannot be dispensed with, as has been done in the present case, whereby in the show-cause notice dated 6.2.2002, regular inquiry has been dispensed with, In or view, appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself properly as he was not allowed to produce his witnesses in defence, It is by now a well-settled principle of law that in order to award major penalty, a regular departmental inquiry was imperative, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases i.e, 1997 SCM R 1543, 2004 SCM R 316 and 2004 SCM R 49. In the present case, neither it was ordered nor conducted, as is manifest from the pleading of parties.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order dated 5.4.2002 imposing major penalty of removal of the appellant from service is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service. However, the respondent-department is directed to initiate and hold de novo departmental proceedings against the appellant by providing full chance to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and to defend himself properly. Such proceedings shall be initiated and completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The question of back benefits shall depend upon the outcome of such fresh proceedings.
5. Parties be informed accordingly.