Sayed Mehar Hussain Shah, Member:--The appellant through this appeal has challenged-the impu'gned order dated 08.12.2005 whereby major penalty of reversion to lower grade for a period of two years was imposed upon him. Against the said penalty, appellant preferred a departmental appeal dated 20.12.2005 which was rejected on 26.07.2006; hence this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the memo. of appeal, are that while the appellant had been posted as Weigh Bridge Inspector at Karachi City, was served with a show-cause notice dated 29.09.2005 under the Removal from Service . (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 alongwith statement of allegations containing following allegations:-- "(a) The CWI/W paid a surprise visit of your office on 10.09.2005 and when checked attendance of Class-IV staff, found following staff absent, although they were shown as present in muster. On enquiry you told that all the three employees have been directed for maintenance of weighing machine and weigh bridge at General Store-KC. {{TABLE}}
1. Mr. Amir Muhammad, Muawin.
2. Mr. Muhammad Afzal, Muawin.
3. Mr. Abdul Razak, Muawin. {{TABLE}}
(b) Your muster was found without top initial from AME/W, although clear instructions have been given to do so. In past the charges of changing and altering muster sheets have been established against you and major penalty has been imposed but you did not mend yourself and still indulged in such irregularities.
(c) This state of affairs shows that you have been involved in mal-practice as you totally failed to prove the presence of staff at General Store nor reported any matter to this office."
The appellant submitted his reply dated 06.10.2005 to the said show-cause notice, rebutting the charges and explaining his position, denying the charges. Thereafter, he was heard in person and then the impugned penalty of reversion to the lower grade for a period of two years was imposed upon him vide order dated 08.12.2005 against which he preferred a departmental appeal on 20.12.2005, which having been rejected; hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the reversion is not a tabulated penalty under Section-3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, as such, the impugned order is unlawful. He relied on 1986 PLC (CS) 812 and 1988 PLC (CS) 861. That inquiry was dispensed with in the show-cause notice under Section - 5 (4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance 2000, without recording any reason; hence, order passed on said show-cause notice are unlawful. He relied on 2005 TD (Service) 625 and 2006 SCMR 106. He vehemently argued that penalty cannot be imposed without regular departmental inquiry, whereas, it was dispensed with in the show-cause notice. He relied on 2004 SCMR 1662 and 2004 SCJ 455. He further argued that in reply to the show-cause notice, the allegations were denied by the appellant, warranting regular departmental inquiry in view of the law laid down in KLR 2005 L & SC 404, 2005 PLC (CS) 1536 and 2005 PLC (CS) 227.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of comments, filed on behalf of the respondents, forcefully defended the action taken against the appellant and stated that competent authority can dispense with the inquiry in case of having sufficient documentary evidence. In this case, the malversation committed by the appellant is evident from the record and physical verification; hence, competent authority has exercised its powers as enshrined under Section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000. He argued that the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself during personal hearing but failed to add more or convince nor submitted any documentary evidence in support of his defence.
5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and have also carefully perused the material placed on record. We have also gone through the record minutely and we find that the appellant has been punished without holding a proper regular inquiry, which was dispensed with in the show-cause notice issued to the appellant. We find that serious allegations were levelled against the appellant in the statement of charges, annexed with the show-cause notice. We also find that major penalty of reversion, being not a tabulated penalty under Section - 3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, has been imposed upon the appellant without a regular departmental inquiry, when the allegations are denied by the appellant in reply to the show-cause notice. It is by now a well settled principle of law that in case of awarding major penalty, a proper inquiry is to be conducted in accordance with law wherein a delinquent officer is to be provided an opportunity of defence and personal hearing after issuing show-cause notice, obtaining his reply whereof and if the charges are proved in the regular inquiry, thereafter, he is to be penalized. Serious allegations have been levelled in the show-cause notice, which having been denied, regular inquiry was required to have been conducted which has not been done, rendering the impugned order, as illegal. We rely. on 2004 PLC (CS) 312, PLD 2003 Supreme Court 187, 2000 SCMR 1030, 2004 PLC (CS)
856 and 1993 SCMR 603 on the point of holding inquiry in case of major penalty.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order dated 08.12.2005 imposing major penalty of reversion to lower grade for a period of two years upon the appellant is set-aside.
However, the respondent-department is directed to initiate and hold denovo departmental proceedings against the appellant by providing full chance to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and to defend himself property. Such proceedings shall be initiated and completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appellant is directed to fully participate in the inquiry proceedings.
7. No order as to costs.
8. Parties be informed accordingly.