Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Muhammad Younis was a Postmaster of Post Office, Sarang. He was proceeded against under the E&D Rules, 1973 on the charge of misappropriation, corruption, breach of trust, efficiency and misconduct and was awarded penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 17.01.2011. His departmental appeal dated 07.02.2011 was not responded.
Hence this appeal.
2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 14.10.2010. It was stated by the respondents that he had not submitted reply to this notice within the stipulated period and had requested for documents. On 05.11.2010 he was given personal hearing wherein he had admitted his fault. Thus the case of the respondents is that since the appellant had confessed his guilt, he was awarded penalty of dismissal from service.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The charges levelled against the appellant were that he had misappropriated Rs,34,834/- by short crediting under Head PLI Accounts and that he had committed corruption of Rs,650/- by misappropriating transfer fee of licenses. The total amount was deposited by the appellant on 27/30 August, 2010. He was awarded penalty of reduction by five steps in his pay and was debarred for inchargeship for five years with immediate effect with hope that he would be careful in future vide order dated 10.11.2010. As a consequence of this order the appellant was reinstated into service vide order dated 23.11.2010. Surprisingly this was withdrawn on 27.11.2010 without assigning any reason. The said order is reproduced verbatim:-- "PAKISTAN POST OFFICE OF THE DIVL SUPDT POSTAL SERVICES RAWALPINDI DIVISION No, F-4/Sang/Pli-10 dated at Rawalpindi, the 2.11.2010.
Sub: DECISION AGAINST MR. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THE THEN POSTMASTER SANG P.O IN RESPECT OF SANG FRAUD CASE The punishment orders issued vide this office memo of even No, dated 10.11.2010 are hereby ordered to be recalled till further orders. Sd/ Divl. Supdt. Postal Services Rawalpindi Division"
5. After the earlier order dated 10.11.2010 was recalled a fresh order was passed on 17.01.2011 by which the appellant was dismissed from service. We fail to understand as to why and for what reason the competent authority had withdrawn the earlier penal order dated 10.11.2010. No reason was recorded for recalling that order. No reason was recorded for passing the changed penal order. We are of the view that the order of penalty earlier passed on 10.11.2010 could not be withdrawn without notice to the appellant and that too without assigning reasons. Hence the subsequent order dated 17.01.2011 was without jurisdiction. The first order dated 10.11.2010 remains in field and is still operative.
6. The record shows that the amount in question had been deposited in toto by the appellant on 27/30 August, 2010 much before the penal order was passed against him. It was probably due to that deposit that the competent authority had awarded him lesser penalty of reduction in pay. We are constrained to hold that in the presence of earlier order, the subsequent order which has been impugned in the present appeal could not be passed.
7. The result is that the appeal is accepted. The order dated 17.01.2011 is set aside. The appellant is reinstated into service. The order dated 10.11.2010 shall remain operative for a period of five years.
The appellant shall be entitled to back benefits according to the rules.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.