SAYED MEHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBER The appellant through this appeal has challenged the impugned order Of dismissal from service dated 17.4.2003 awarded by the respondent No. 2 and as well against the appellate rejection order of respondent No. 1 dated 2.7.2003 received by the appellant on 7.7.2003.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the1 appellant joined Postal Department in the year 1974 and having long standing in the department when he was taken up departmentally and was served with show-cause notice on 31.3.2003 thereby dispensing with regular departmental inquiry under Section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The said show-cause notice is reproduced as under:- "Whereas you Mr. Muhammad Khan Jalbani, Postmaster (B-7) Sakrand NPO are accused of having committed the following acts while working as Postmaster Sakrand day post office, which constitute in-efficiency and misconduct under Sections 2 and 3 Of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended).
(A) Mr. Muhammad Khan while working as Postmaster Sakrand Post Office found responsible for issuing fake PT-24(AL) receipts for renewal of Arms Licenses and amount so collected was pocketed by him details of such licenses so far deducted are available is enclosed Annexure "A".
(B) You also admitted this fact in your statement and credited Rs. 29470/- under \J/R vide ACD- 67 P.O. Receipt No. 48 book No. 40988, dated 10.2.2003.
(C) By reasons of the above you appeared to be guilty of (INEFFICIENCY) or ceased to be efficient within the meaning of Section 3(1 )(A) and "MISCONDUCT" within the meaning of Sections 2(B) and 3(1 )(B) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended) for the said commission/omission on your part.
(D) And whereas the undersigned being competent authority after considering above-mentioned facts of the case and reasons/grounds there are is satisfy that there is no need for holding an enquiry in the case in terms of Section 5(4) of the aforesaid Ordinance.
Now, therefore, you are hereby called upon under Section 3(i)(a)(b) and 3(i)(b) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2O0O (as amended) to show cause within 7 days of receipt of this notice as to why one or more of the penalties as prescribed in v Section 3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended) which include the major penalty of "Dismissal from service" may not be imposed on you on the above grounds, in case your reply to show- cause notice is n6t received in this office within stipulated period, it would be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and ex parte decision would be taken on the case on merits. If you desired to be heard in person please mention the same in your .Written defence." Sd/- 31/03 Divi: SUPDT: Postal Service Nawabshah." .
3. The appellant tendered his reply to The said show-cause, notice, which is undated and rebutted the charges levelled against him. The appellant was called for personal hearing on 11.4.2003 and thereafter on 17.4.2003 the appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant submitted his departmental appeal dated 29.4.2003 against the said order to the respondent No. 1. The appellant was called for personal hearing by the respondent No. 1 on 30.6.2003 and thereafter the impugned order was passed on 2.7.2003; hence, this appeal filed on 5.8.2003.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the major penalty was imposed by the respondent No. 2 without holding regular departmental inquiry or any facts finding inquiry against the appellant and in this connection placed reliance on 2003 PLC (CS) 353 and 2006 PLC (CS) 766.
He argued that regular departmental inquiry was dispensed with in the show-cause notice issued to the appellant by respondent No. 2 on 31.3.2003 without assigning any reason as mandated under Section 5(4) of the R.S.O., 2000. He vehemently denied having deposited any amount as alleged by the respondents and the entire case was based upon the report of the Vigilance Team.
The learned counsel further argued that major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the basis of report of the Vigilance Team, which was absolutely illegal in- as-much-as the appellant was not provided the chance of defence in the departmental inquiry, in support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Tribunal as reported in 2006 TD (Service) 238 in which the Tribunal in an identical case had set aside the order of the departmental authority.
5. The learned Federal Counsel defended the case of the respondents forcefully by stating that the appellant was rightly punished as the entire case against him was based on documentary evidence. He contended that the order was passed by the competent authority and appeal of the appellant was rejected on merit by the appellate authority under the law. The learned Federal Counsel stated at bar that appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable on merit and may be dismissed with costs.
6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and have also carefully perused the material placed on record. Admittedly, the regular departmental inquiry was dispensed with in the show- cause notice and major penalty of dismissal from service was awarded to the appellant. While awarding major penalty, regular departmental inquiry cannot be dispensed with and in this respect reliance can safely be placed on PLD 2004 SC 191, 2006 SCMR 393, PLJ 2007 SC 54, 2009 SCMR 412, 2009 PLC (CS) 19 and 2009 SCMR 339. It is also an admitted fact that report against the appellant was drafted by Vigilance Team, it is a settled principle of law that confession by the appellant, if any, made before the unauthorized person (and in case of the appellant before the Vigilance Team), has no value in the eyes of law. In this connection, reliance is placed on PLD 2002 SC 667 and 2006 TD (Service) 238. Relevant portion in the case reported in 2006 TD (Service) 238, is reproduced hereunder:- "-Charge of corruption, inefficiency and misconduct- -Cannot be proved' on the basis of preliminary inquiry and vigilance team's report of the Army Monitoring Team-Major punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the civil servant on the basis of preliminary inquiry and vigilance team's report of Amy Monitoring Team, would not be legally sustainable."
7. For the reasons, discussed hereinabove, we allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned order dated17.4.2003 regarding dismissal of the appellant from service, awarded by respondent No. 2 as well as the appellate rejection order dated 3.7.2003 of the respondent No. 1. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service by the respondents. Thereafter, the matter is remanded to the respondents to hold de novo departmental proceedings against the appellant for the charges which are serious in nature.
These proceedings, if held, shall be taken up under the law and shall be initiated and completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The question of back benefits shall depend upon the result of de novo proceedings, if any initiated and completed within the period, referred to above by the respondents.
8. Parties be informed accordingly.