Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Saleem Shahid is an Inspector in the service of the respondents. He was charge sheeted on 06.03.2010. The charges against him were that he had carried out defective examination of goods against GD No,5988 dated 19.11.2009 and GD No,6034 dated 20.11.2009, causing revenue loss to the Government. An order of inquiry was passed against him on 17.02.2010. Mr. Tahir Habib Cheema, Assistant Collector, MCC was appointed as Enquiry Officer. In his inquiry report dated 25.05.2010 Mr. Tahir Habib Cheema, Enquiry Officer exonerated him of the charges. However, the competent authority ordered de novo proceedings on 22.06.2010.
Mr. Ahmed Kamal, Deputy Collector was appointed as new Enquiry Officer. He submitted his inquiry report on 02.09.2010 in which the above mentioned charges were approved. He recommended major penalty of reversion to lower post as LDC for two years. He further recommended that the appellant be barred from field posting. On the inquiry report the appellant was served with a show cause notice on 15.09.2010. The competent authority awarded him penalty of reduction in pay scale by five stages for five years vide order dated 14.12.2010 under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. He filed a departmental appeal on 27.12.2010. The departmental appellate authority reduced the period of penalty from five to two years vide order dated 18.07.2011.
Hence this appeal.
2. The main contention of the appellant is that the competent authority had not recorded reasons for holding a de novo inquiry.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that in the de novo inquiry the charges levelled against the appellant were fully proved, therefore, he was awarded penalty in question strictly in accordance with law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. As mentioned above, Mr. Tahir Habib Cheema was the first Enquiry Officer. He had conducted detailed inquiry and had exonerated the appellant of the charges levelled against him. The competent authority was fully empowered to order a de novo inquiry but for that reasons had to be recorded. We have perused the order dated 22.06.2010 by which Mr. Ahmed Kamal was appointed fresh Enquiry Officer. It did not contain any reason. This order reads as under; -- "Government of Pakistan Model Customs Collectorcte, Custom House, 64-C-3, Gulberg-III, Lahore.
Dated Lahore the 28th June, 2010.
In exercise of powers under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000, Mr. Ahmed Kamal, Deputy Collector/Departmental Representative, Customs, Excise & Sales Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Lahore is appointed as Enquiry Officer to intiate de novo enquiry against Mr. Muhammad Saleem Shahid, Inspector on the charges contained in the order of the inquiry issued vide No,II-Confl/CP/07/479 dated 17.02.2010.
2. The Enquiry Officer shall scrutinize and hold do novo enquiry into the charges in the light of observations contained in para-37 to 40/N of case record file and would complete the same according to the provisiOns of the Ordinance. The Enquiry Officer shall submit his findings and recommendations to the undersigned within three weeks. Sd/- (Najeeb R. Abbasi) Collector (Competent Authority) Dated 28.6.2010."
6. A bare reading of the above order shows that no reason was given for rejecting the inquiry report of Mr. Tahir Habib Cheema. It was mandatory for the Competent Authority to give justiciable reasons for rejecting report of the said Enquiry Officer and then to appoint Mr. Ahmed Kamal to hold de novo inquiry. The competent authority had committed an illegality in not rejecting the report of Mr. Tahir Habib Cheema and in not recording the reasons for appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances, the very appointment of Mr. Ahmed Kamal as. 2nd Enquiry Officer was not legal. Hence no penalty could be awarded to the appellant on his report.
7. We have seen the report of Mr. Tahir Habib Cheema and find no legal defect in it. Since he had exonerated the appellant of the charges levelled against him, therefore, we accept the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed upon him.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.