' SYED HAMID HUSSAIN, MEMBER.--- This appeal is against the order dated 24-08-2015 passed by the learned Chairman of the Commission, appellant/respondents being aggrieved hence, the instant appeal.
2. Tanvir Ahmed Kiani, respondent/petitioner, (hereinafter would be called as respondent) OB helper Pakistan Television Network, Islamabad was terminated from service vide order dated 06- 07-2012 by the appellant/Respondent (hereinafter would be called appellant). The termination of the respondent/petitioner from his service was due to dissatisfaction of his work with the allegation for which he was charged sheeted that the respondent/petitioner committed theft, fraud and dishonesty usurped the corporation goods, property etc and reply to the charge sheet was not satisfactory and allegedly the charge of misconduct was fully proved and there were no mitigating circumstances available so the service of respondent/petitioner Tanvir Ahmed Kiani were terminated. Respondent/Petitioner was granted one month basic pay in lieu of notice period actual cost of camera Rs,104,665/- would have to be adjusted against his dues. Respondent/Petitioner was also laden for clearance certificate from all concerned at PTV News, Islamabad.
Respondents/Petitioner preferred representation/appeal to the Managing Director PTV Headquarter Islamabad for de novo inquiry on 13-07-2012 with the contention mentioned therein.
Another representation was also made by the respondent/petitioner to the Minister for Information and Broadcasting Government of Pakistan for his reinstatement in service and for fresh inquiry with the reasons mentioned in the representation. The above said Federal Minister ordered for re- inquiry and to ensure that justice should.Be done in the case.
3. The petitioner was served charge sheet on 26-12-2011, was called upon to file reply to the charges of misconduct as alleged and to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him (respondent/petitioner) and resultantly respondent/petitioner was terminated vide order dated 06-07-2012, who being aggrieved filed grievance petition. That the petition of the respondent/petitioner for redressal of his grievance under section 33 of the IRA, 2012 was accepted by the learned Chairman of the Commission that the respondent/petitioner shall be treated on service as was on date whereof on 06-07-2012 the date on which he was terminated from the service. The respondent/petitioner shall be taken on duty within seven days who shall be entitled for the arrears of the salary with all admissible allowances from the date of initial termination order if not gainfully employed elsewhere for which the respondent/petitioner was directed to submit affidavit to the concerned officer. The disciplinary proceedings pending idle against the respondent/petitioner is directed to be finalized within four weeks from the date of its order. The appellant/respondent being aggrieved, hence, the instant appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent argued that the dispute relates to the internal security of PTV goods and Property so this Bench lacks jurisdiction so the impugned order was passed without any jurisdiction which is not tenable at law and further according to the service of PTV it is a non-statutory body and learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon case law 1992 SCMR 1093, 2007 PLC (CS) 138, 2009 PLC (CS) 565, C.P No,331/2009 titled Sohaial Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan/PTV, C.P. No,1362/1009 titled M. Ryas Bhatti, v. Ministry of Information/PTV and C.P No,1828/2011 titled Rashida Sohail v. M.D. PTV, PLD 2007 SC 681 and PLD 2006 SC 602. The learned counsel also argued that Corporation will have to face gigantic and irreparable loss if the judgment is not set aside which would amount to promoting the trend of theft and irresponsible behaviour of the employees and he prayed for acceptance dr appeal after setting aside the above mentioned impugned order.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent/petitioner argued that the impugned order has been passed in accordance to the law and facts which falls within four corners of natural justice. He further argued that all the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant / respondent with the instant case have no nexuses.
6. Arguments heard. File perused.
7. From the perusal of the file record and order there is no escape to this reality that a inquiry committee was constituted for re-conducting inquiry on the direction of Minister as mentioned above against the respondent/petitioner pertaining to the charges for which he was charge sheeted and it is well settled principles of law that after the conclusion of the inquiry the inquiry committee has to submit its report to the competent. Authority for passing some final orders.
Although the inquiry committee which was constituted for re-conducting inquiry find the petitioner guilty but up-till now no final order has been passed by the competent authority on the basis of recommendations of the inquiry committee and learned Chairman thoroughly probe the matter by hearing the Senior Personnel Officer of the appellant/respondents and on the asking of learned Chairman he produced the record and it was specifically surfaced from the photo copies of the note-sheet, which were produced on 13-08-2015 before the learned Chairman and it confirm the situation specifically from the perusal of paras.26 and 27 of the note sheet that Director Administration and Senior Personnel Officer agreed with the office note as containing at Para-26 that the matter is sub judice up-till now as, they are waiting for the decision of the Court. Para-26 of the office note reads as under:- "One of the accused employee has filed petition in the court of law as his service has been terminated by the local management of PTV-News while the other co-accused has been found "not guilty" in afresh enquiry constituted by PTV HQ Islamabad. Since the case is sub judice therefore, we may wait till decision of the court and may not proceed/take action on the finding of the inquiry report."
8. So it is evident from the above facts and circumstances that although a fresh enquiry was held but no final order has been passed by the competent authority rather that has been withheld on administrative side till the decision of the Commission. In consequent to this there is no escape to this reality that the respondent/petitioner shall for all intends and purposes be treated in service as the earlier termination order dated 06-07-2012 is not in the field because an appeal was preferred by the respondents/petitioner before the Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan and as stated above re-enquiry were ere initiated, was essentially that above said termination order dated 06-07-2012 has been questioned by the respondent/petitioner through the petition subject matter of the instant appeal which was not enforced on re-enquiry order by the Minister on respondent/petitioner's appeal and withholding the final order by the competent authority due to sub judice of the matter before the Commission. Till the passing of the final order on the recommendation of the re-enquiry committee, because, the earlier termination order dated 06-07-2012 which is an impugned order in the instant petition has been already sub-merged and lost its worth due to constitution of fresh inquiry committee so the. Learned Chairman was quite right in holding that respondent/petitioner shall be treated on duty wherefrom 06-07-2012 the date on which he has terminated from service, no illegality has been committed by the learned Chairman and no fact has been ignored. The impugned order is quite in accordance to the law and facts which do not deserve any interference by the Full Bench. Consequent to this the impugned order is upheld and resultantly the appeal is hereby dismissed. File of this appeal and that of the learned Chairman be consigned to the record room after its due completion.