Ali Nawaz A. Channa, Member.--The appellant, who is employee of Pakistan Rangers, has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. against the order of dismissal passed by the department against him.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that the wife of Ex-Driver was found in his Quarter with immoral purpose; hence, inquiry was conducted against him and he- was punished with dismissal from service.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant the departmental representative on behalf of the respondents and gone through the appeal, the comments and the relevant documents with regard to the inquiry.
4. At the very out set learned counsel for the appellant argued that no, regular inquiry was conducted against the appellant, that the statement of no witness was recorded and no opportunity was Afforded to the appellant to cross examine them hence, the order passed for dismissal of the appellants is against the principles of natural justice and is quite illegal ab-initio.
As against this, the departmental representative argued that the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant which he replied, charge was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and so also statement of allegation was also issued to him. He also argued that the department has not committed any illegality in the inquiry proceedings and the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and finding the appellant guilty, he was dismissed from service.
5. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and he denied the allegations leveled against him. It appears that only charge and statement of allegation was served upon the appellant and, thereafter, proforma was prepared in which the appellant was punished with dismissal from service w,e,f, 26.07.2010 without holding proper and regular inquiry specially when the appellant had denied the charges. When the charges are denied and the dispute about facts is involved, the holding of the inquiry is imperative. The appellant preferred appeal to the departmental head on which the department called for the comments from the respondents, who after receipt of this letter, initiated departmental inquiry. The dismissal order is dated 23.07.2010 while the inquiry proceedings, which have been filed, started from 25.11.2010. It means that inquiry was started after punishment to appellant. In the inquiry, statement of three witnesses were recorded, then statement of accused was recorded and then final opinion and recommendations were recorded which were sent to the Headquarters, but nothing had happened' from the Headquarters, but the Headquarters has passed no order on the departmental appeal of appellant as well as on the findings of the inquiry officer. The procedure adopted by the respondents, is novel and quite illegal and unwarranted by law. The inquiry which was conducted after dismissal of the appellant is quite illegal. Departmental appeal of the appellant is still pending with the headquarters and no final verdict has been communicated to the appellant. This type of procedure, adopted by the respondents, cannot be approved rather it is totally illegal and against the law.
6. The departmental representative had stated that the ,appellant had confessed his guilt before the inquiry committee, therefore, punishment was awarded to him. We do not find any statement of the accused duly signed by him in which he would have confessed. his guilt. Only it, is written by the inquiry office in his own hand that the appellant has confessed his guilt. That is not sufficient confession in the eyes of law. It is also not signed by the appellant. If the civil servant wants to confess, it should be in the form of statement where he should admit his guilt in clear and un- ambiguous terms so as to let this Tribunal knew that the appellant know that he confesses his guilt.
Even otherwise, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge, then what happened in the meanwhile that he confessed his guilt. From the above, the Court cannot arrive at a conclusion that the appellant had voluntarily and after understanding nature of allegations had confessed his guilt.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is allowed. The order of dismissal is set-aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated into service forthwith. The inquiry proceedings conducted after the dismissal of the appellant are also set-aside being illegal and against the law.
The appellant will be entitled to award of back benefits. No order as to costs.
8. Parties be informed accordingly.