Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Abid Rehman is aggrieved by order dated 11.06.2011 by which his resignation was accepted and he was struck off from the strength of Pakistan Ordinance Factories. This order was received by him on 05.07.2011. His departmental appeal dated 25.07.2011 was not responded. Hence this appeal.
2. The appellant was appointed as Labour-II in 1994. He was promoted to BS-5. It is alleged that he was arrested flagrante delicto by FIU on 09.01.2011 at 5:40 hours with sensitive material which he was trying to take out from the main gate. According to the respondents after his arrest he was released since a criminal case was not registered against him. It is maintained by them that he had voluntarily submitted his resignation which was accepted. On the other hand, the contention of the appellant is that the resignation was obtained from him by coercion and under threat.
3. The respondents have taken a legal objection that the appeal is time barred.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. Today Mr. Majid Bashir, Advocate for the respondents has admitted before us that the appellant was not caught red-handed. He has, however, reiterated that the appellant had submitted his resignation voluntarily. We are not convinced. There was a theft charge of sensitive material against the appellant. It was under the pressure of that charge that the appellant had tendered his resignation. Thus it could not be treated to be voluntary. We are of the view that the resignation was obtained from the appellant under the circumstances, mentioned above. These circumstances tentamounted to coercion and undue influence. Whenever a person is under threat of a criminal case, he is normally not in a fit state to act independently or with free consent.
However, each case has to be decided on its own merit. When it is proved that action was taken under coercion or duress, it becomes void. The appellant has pleaded coercion. We are constrained to hold that the order dated 11.06.2011 was not valid since his resignation had been obtained in the circumstance beyond his control. Such an order has to be treated as void and for challenging a void order there is no fixed period of limitation. It has to be challenged within reasonable time. The present appeal was filed within reasonable time. The objection of the respondents regarding limitation is repelled in the circumstances.
6. A serious charge had been levelled against the appellant. It is an established law that when the charge is serious, a regular inquiry is mandatory. The respondents have maintained that no inquiry was held since the appellant had submitted his resignation. We have held that the resignation had not been tendered voluntarily. As such the respondents are required to hold regular inquiry against the appellant on the charge levelled against him.
7. The result is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned order dated 11.06.2011 by which the resignation of the appellant was accepted is set aside. He is reinstated into service. The respondents may hold denovo proceedings against him. In the departmental inquiry he shall be given adequate opportunity to associate and cross-examine the witnesses. He shall be heard in person after a show-cause notice is issued to him on the basis of inquiry report. All the codal and legal formalities may be completed, preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of the judgment is received in the office of respondents. The payment of back benefits shall depend on the outcome of fresh proceedings.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Parties shall be informed.