JUDGMENT JUSTICE (R) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN - -- The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.10.2003 whereby a major punishment of dismissal from service i.e.f. 18.10.2003 has been awarded to him, against which he preferred departmental appeal dated 13.11.2003,, which having not been responded, hence this appeal filed before the Tribunal on 27.03.2004 alongwith an application for condonation of delay.
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the memo, of appeal are that the appellant joined Pakistan Rangers as Sub-Inspector Rangers on 24.05.1999 and was posted at 92 Wing (ASGR). It is stated in the memo, of appeal that the appellant obtained loan of Rs. 200,000/- from Major (Retd.)
Muhammad Akram for his father with an interest of Rs, 2500/- per month which he had been paying to Major (Retd.) Muhammad Akram. On a complaint of Major (Retd) Muhammad Akram .
That the appellant had taken Rs. 200,000/- from him in order to steal the oil from the terminal, a charge-sheet dated 25.09.2003 containing six charges was issued to the appellant. The said charge-sheet was duly replied by the appellant on 30.09.2003 admitting the receipt of the said personal loan and stating that it was given by him to his father who was in need of money to purchase a School which amount was later on invested by Major (Retd) Muhammad Akram in the rice business and in which deal said Muhammad Akram had to arrange 500 M. Tons of rice and as he was unable to arrange the rice the said deal was cancelled, whereafter the said complaint was filed, It is stated in the memo, of appeal that Major (Retd) Muhammad Akram, who served in 70 Wing Sachal Rangers as second in command had influenced the Director General in issuing charge-sheet which fact can further be proved from the fact that no show-cause notice was ever issued to the appellant and the appellant was punished without going through the real fact, hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as departmental representative. .
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order passed by respondent No. 2 is harsh, discriminatory, mala fide, bad in law and of no legal effect. That the appellant was denied the right of defence by not supplying/providing him copies of the inquiry proceedings, as' the same was never conducted by respondent No. 2 nor any show-cause notice. Was issued to the appellant. That inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law and witness No. 1 has been foisted upon and his evidence is not to be believed under the law and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, departmental representative relying on the comments stated that a proper inquiry was-conducted and the allegations levelled against the appellant were proved, It is stated in the comments that Major (Retd.) Muhammad Akram was not serving in Rangers, therefore, the department was not competent to take any action against him. However, General Headquarter was informed about the illegal activities of said Major (Retd.) Muhammad Akram for necessary action, It was stated in the comments that the appellant being a member of disciplined force was deployed on various important places of Sindh Province and nobody could be permitted to join an illegal deal with culprits like Major (Retd.) Muhammad Akram and take Rs. 2,00,000/- as bribe providing full cooperation for envisaged plan to steal diesel from Keamari Oil Terminal at his place of duty, getting cellular phone set (mobile) from civilian Manzoor Ahmed and not reporting the matter. To any senior, It has also specifically been mentioned in the comments that the appeal is time-barred;
6. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties.
7. Admittedly regular inquiry has not been conducted in the instant case before awarding punishment of dismissal from service. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that award of such punishment without holding regular inquiry is not sustainable until the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. Reliance is placed on 2001 PLC (C.S.) 296 wherein it was held that "Where the' employee denied all the allegations, it was not the case of having recourse to the shortest procedure of show-cause notice as controversial questions of fact were involved which could not be resolved without recording of evidence and opportunity of cross- examination to civil servant." Reliance is also placed on 2001 SCMR 256 wherein it was held that "Inquiry having not been conducted in accordance with law, the entire subsequent actions based on that inquiry report had no legal sanctity."
8. For the above reasons, we while exercising the power as envisaged under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condone the delay, allow the appeal set aside the impugned. Order dated 21.10.2003, reinstate thb appellant in service and remand the case with direction to the respondents to hold de novo enquiry proceedings according to law within a period of four months. The period of four months shall be counted from the date of receipt of a copy of his judgment by the respondents.
The question of back benefits shall depend upon the result of the enquiry. No order as to costs.
9. Parties be informed accordingly.