Sayed Mehar Hussain Shah, Member.--The appellant through this appeal has challenged the order 31.07.2004 whereby major penalty of reduction to substantive scale of postman with immediate effect was imposed upon him. Against the said penalty, appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 16.08.2004, which was rejected on 17.01.2005; hence, this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that proper departmental inquiry was not conducted and proper chance of defence was not provided to the appellant. Me argued that two penalties i.e. reduction to the stage of Postman and withholding of promotion, have been imposed which are major penalties and not allowed under the law. He further argued that time and duration of reduction under FR-29 was not mentioned in the order hence, it is a void order. He has further argued that complainant/material witnesses of the case were not examined by the inquiry officer and that no penalty was recommended by the inquiry officer in his findings. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel relied on 1998 TD (Service) 114, 2009 TD (Service) 360, 2006 SCMR 434, 2006 PLC (CS) 604, 2008 PLC (CS) 1156, SBLR 2004 Tr. (Service) 1, 2008 PLC (CS) 855 and 2000 PLC
(CS) 1196.
3. Departmental representative, appearing for the respondents, relied on the comments filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been contended that personal hearing was given to the appellant by the then Chief Postmaster, Hyderabad, GPO and that the proceedings were finalized after observing formalities under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by the present Chief Postmaster Hyderabad, GPO.
4. We have considered the above arguments, advanced on behalf of both the parties. The proper procedure for conduct of inquiry is that first of all witness has to be given oath, allowed to record his evidence in a free atmosphere and then was to be cross-examined by the -other side. Perusal of the record shows that the inquiry was not conducted in a proper manner, as above and instead it was conducted in question answer form, which is not a substitute to the regular departmental inquiry, as has rightly been pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant. That impugned order is a void order, as two penalties have been imposed upon the appellant i.e. (i) reduction to substantive scale of postman with immediate effect and (ii) barring him from further promotion, which is against the law, as held in 2006 SCMR 34. Above all, time and duration of reduction, as required under FR-29, has not been mentioned in the impugned order; hence, liable to be set-aside on this ground alone. We rely on 2006. PLC (CS) 604, wherein it has been held that, "respondents in the impugned order dated, 5.7.2001 did not mention and state the period for which the said punishment would be effective and it was mandatory and not directory under FR-29". In this regard, reliance is also placed on 1995 PLC (CS) 462, PLD 1982 Peshawar 165 and 2004 PLC (CS) 15T Proceedings of the inquiry have not been pierced before us and, therefore, it can be assumed that material witnesses of the case were not examined by the inquiry officer, which is fatal to the case.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order dated 31.07.2004 as well as appellate rejection order dated 17.01.2005 are set-aside and the appellant is restored to his original position when the impugned order was passed with no order as to costs.
6. Parties be informed accordingly.