Syed Hamid Ali Bukhari, Member.--This is an appeal against the impugned order dated 06.09.2010, received to the appellant on 15.09.2010, whereby he was dismissed from service with recovery of Rs,579,148/- under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The departmental appeal filed by the appellant on 11.10.2010 was rejected vide order dated 27.01.2012, received to him on 30.01.2012, and the present appeal has been filed on 27.02.2011 The appellant has been dismissed from service for committing misappropriation of money from Saving Bank Accounts, nonperformance of legitimate duties and criminal breach of trust.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments stated that the penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the appellant without holding a regular inquiry whereas the apex Court has consistently held that before imposition of major penalty the holding of regular inquiry is necessary. He stated that the appellant was also not afforded the opportunity of personal hearing.
It was also stated that the appellant was not provided the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned counsel concluded that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed under the law; therefore, the impugned orders are not maintainable and liable to be set aside.
3. In reply, the departmental representative for the respondents stated that the appellant was issued a show-cause notice on 07.09.2009 for committing acts of omission and commission. He was also afforded the opportunity of personal hearing but he could not satisfy the appellate authority. He conceded that no regular inquiry was conducted against the appellant.
4. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. The appellate authority had not given any reason as to why there was no need to hold inquiry and how such charges were taken to be proved without holding an inquiry. When initial order or act relating to initiation of proceedings was contrary to law then all subsequent proceedings and actions taken thereon would have no basis and would fall as when an employee has to be removed on the basis of misconduct allegedly committed by him he deserves fair opportunity to defend himself because if for such reasons he is dismissed from service then for all the time to come he carries a stigma of misconduct with him.
We, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, find that the respondents have not followed the prescribed procedure before imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that of course the provision of shorter procedure exists in the rules but the interest of justice demands that regular inquiry must be held. We are fortified to take this view from the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as PLD 2002 SC 667, PLJ 2002 SC 525 and 2009 SCM R 329, 339 & 415. Therefore, the impugned orders are not maintainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 06.09.2010 and the appellate order dated 27.01.2011 are set aside. The appellant is reinstated into service and the case is remanded to the respondents for holding regular inquiry under the law and the rules prescribed thereunder. The inquiry proceedings may be finalized within three months. The back benefits will depend upon the out come of inquiry and proceedings.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms without any order as to costs.
6. A copy of this judgment be sent to all the parties.