' M.A. AZIZ (MEMBER).--- The appellant while working as Counter Clerk with Postal Department and posted in the Latifabad GPO was issued charge-sheet dated 6-7-2009 on the following charges:-- "(i) Having possession of counterfeit/forged stamps.
(ii) Selling of counterfeit/forged stamps.
(iii) Booking of postal article by affixing counterfeit/forged stamps. (iv) Non-maintaining the postage stamp balance register properly.
(v) Causing loss to Government Exchequer.
(vi) Criminal Breach of Trust.
' She was called upon under section 3 of the RSO-2000 to show cause why one or more of the penalties which include major penalty of dismissal may not be imposed on her. She requested for supply of the copy of the documents to file her reply which was supplied to her. The competent authority vide order dated 14-9-2009 while dispensing with regular inquiry removed her from service with immediate effect to which she made representation on 28-9-2009 which was rejected vide order dated 21-1-2010, hence the appellant filed instant appeal before the Tribunal on 2-2- 2010.
2. The learned counsel of the appellant while arguing his case submitted that no regular inquiry in the case was ordered/conducted and the only evidence for dispensing with the regular inquiry under section 5(4) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was the surprise visit of one Aqeel Ahmed ASPO on 22-12-2008 who found 20 postage stamps of denomination of Rs,4 each amounting to Rs,80 in the custody of the appellant which were got verified from Pakistan Security Printing Corporation (Private) Limited and were found forged. She was also found to book article by fixing forged stamps and thus she was found guilty of inefficiency and misconduct.
3. The main contention of the appellant's counsel was that penalty imposed upon the appellant was major penalty and because of the allegations having been denied by her a regular inquiry was a must in which the whole evidence against the appellant was to be brought on record after her participation and cross-examination. The fact-finding inquiry was made basis for imposing penalty which cannot be a substitute for regular inquiry as has been time and again directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in so many judgments while the department did not comply with the mandatory provisions of law and has charge sheeted and summarily removed the appellant from service without providing her full chance to defend herself, 'specially when her case was that of exchange she might have been de-fraud by customer. The learned counsel further added that small amount of Rs,80 has been made the basis for her dismissal; The punishment is harsh and is not justified in the circumstances of the case. It was also submitted by the learned counsel of the appellant that this case was referred to the F.I.A. By the respondent-department. The F.I.A. Authorities refused to register any case for meager amount of Rs, 80, which has been alleged against the appellant. He placed on record the case-laws decided by the Superior Court in respect of regular inquiry to be conducted in case of major penalty. In this connection he relied upon 2009 SCM R 329 and 2009 SCM R 339 to show that holding of regular inquiry would be essential and dispensation therewith was not permissible.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellant and supported the impugned action by the respondents being legal.
5. We would have ordered for de novo enquiry which is normal in cases when regular inquiry is not 'conducted by the respondent-department in violation of the direction of the Supreme Court but in this case we feel it will be a jock to ask for de novo enquiry for a paltry amount of Rs,8.0 for which the appellant has already undergone a punishment by way long drawn domestic inquiry as well as proceeding in this Tribunal. It will not be in the fitness of the thing to again drag her in the same situation which is against the interest of justice.
6. Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 14-9-2009 and dated 21-1-2010 cannot be sustained as they .Were made in violation of the mandate of law as well as the pronouncempt of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits.
7. No order as to costs.
8. Parties are informed.