1. ' Syed Rafique Hussain Shah, Member.--This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 09.09.2014, conveyed to appellant on 16.09.2014, whereby a major penalty of "reduction to lower stage in his current time scale equal to three increments for a period of three years" was imposed upon the appellant under Section 4 (1) (b) (i) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The appellant preferred departmental appeal against the said order on 24.09.2014 which was not responded to by the appellate authority. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No,97/2015/Bwp in the Honble Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur which was disposed of vide Order dated 12.01.2015 with direction to respondent No,1 to decide the same through a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. In response thereto the departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 27.02.2015, communicated to the appellant on 03.03.2015 vide endorsement dated 03.03.2015. Hence, this appeal on 18.03.2015, which is well within the prescribed period of limitation.
2. The background of the case is that the FIA authorities raided Sales Tax Office, Multan on 27.11.1999 on the basis of information that the officials of Sales Tax, Multan had given illegal refunds of huge amounts to two fake units i,e, M/s Good Luck Impex and Pak. Exporters Multan on the basis of fake documents and had caused loss to Government in millions. The record of the Sales Tax Office, Multan related to the above mentioned two units i,e, registration files, sanction of refund case files and accounts record was taken into custody by the FIA authorities and after scrutiny of record, it was found that both the above mentioned units were fake. Therefore, the FIA authorities registered a case FIR No,37/99 dated 27.11.1999 and arrested M/s Khalid Mehmood, Senior Auditor, Muhammad Amin Bhutta, Deputy Superintendent & Muhammad Iqbal, Inspector in this case and started the investigation of this fraud. The department also investigated the matter and it was confirmed that 'Sales Tax invoices issued by M/s Pak. Exporters, Multan and M/s Good Luck Impex, Club Road, Vehari for refund were fake.
2. 3.On the above basis the appellant was placed under suspension by the respondents w,e,f, 27.11.1999 vide order dated 30.11.1999. He was issued charge sheet alongwith statement of allegations by the Authorized Officer on 20.07.2000 under Government Servants (Efficiency am Discipline) Rules, 1973. Mr. Arshad Mahmood, Assistant Director, Enquiry Wing, Lahore was appointed as Inquiry Officer who conducted the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report on 31.03.2001 holding the appellant guilty of the charges. The appellant was issued show-cause notice on 17.10.2001 alongwith the copy of the inquiry report to which he submitted his defence reply on 30.10.2001 denying the allegations, which did not find fovour with the authority, therefore, he was called for personal hearing. He was heard in person h on different dates. Finally, the appellant was dismissed from service h under Rule 4 (1) (b) ,(iv) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
3. Rules, 1973 and his suspension period was treated as leave without pay vide order dated 30.06.2002 despite the fact that he alongwith others was acquitted by the Judge, Accountability Court No,2, Lahore. Against his dismissal the appellant filed departmental appeal which was allowed in the terms, that it was held that he could not be proceeded under E & D Rules as the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was already promulgated, thus the appellant was reinstated into service in terms of proviso to Rule 5(1) (i) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and his intervening period from the date of dismissal from service to that of reinstatement in service was treated as spent on duty vide Notification dated 21.04.2003.
4. 4.However, fresh proceedings were initiated by the department against him or the same day by the competent authority under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and he was served with the statement of allegations which action was challenged by the appellant before the Honorable High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Writ Petition No,2013/2003 which was allowed vide judgment dated 26.05.2009 on the ground that the appellant could not be prosecuted and punished twice as per Article 13 of the Constitution. This judgment was assailed by the respondents in Civil Appeal No,99 of 2010 which was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court on account of the bar of jurisdiction vide Order dated 23.04.2013. Mr. Yasir Ali. Additional Commissioner, Multan was appointed an inquiry Officer by Member administration), Federal Board of ,Revenue vide Inquiry Order dated 21.10.2013 who conducted the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report to competent authority, on 28.03.2014 holding the appellant guilty of the charges leveled against him. The competent authority issued show-cause notice alongwith inquiry report to the 4 appellant on 28.05.2014. The appellant submitted his defence reply .to the show-cause notice on 06 06.2014 and denied all the charges. The reply did not find favour with the competent authority, therefore, the appellant was granted an opportunity of being. heard. .During the course of personal hearing by Member Admill the appellant submitted copies of judgments of Accountability Court which held M/s Amjad Ali Khan, Auditor and Abdul Khaliq to be the actual culprits whereas prospect lion in the ease of the appellant was withdraw. The appellant , also submitted that he had barely a service experience of three months at the time of incident and did not have enough experience and had to depend upon the guidance of his seniors. He sought consideration to . his level of experience, position, in the hierarchy and the extent of his involvement in the cage: He further submitted that his working was in accordance with the procedure and directions of the superior officers. The competent authority imposed the major penalty of reduction to lower stage in his current time scale equal t6 three increments for a period of three years vide impugned Notification dated 09.09.2014. The appellant preferred departmental appeal to Respondent No, 1/ Appellate authority who upheld the punishment awarded through Notification dated 09.09.201.4.
5. 5.In this backdrop we heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused he rely ant record.
6. 6.The present Proceedings are not competent as the appellant had been proceeded against on the same charges for which the FIA tiled A.C. Ref. No,04/2004 in which the appellant alongwith others was acquitted of the charges by Accountability Court No,2 Lahore holding that Amjad Ali Khan. Auditor. Tax, Till tan and Abdul Khaliq were the actual culprits who had allegedly 'withdrew a huge amount in connivance with each other and by forging the documents. Further, the appellant's reply to the show-cause notice 06.06.2014 would show that the appellant had only three months service it his credit when the occurrence took place and that he acted upon the advice of his seniors. During the course of personal hearing he contested the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the basis of orders of the Accountability Court and that his working was n accordance with the procedure and directions of the superior officers. In these circumstances the competent authority was not justified in punishing the appellant by imposing a major penalty of reduction to lower stage in his current time scale equal to three increments for a period of three years rather it was required to exonerate the appellant from all the charges levelled against him. The judgment of the Accountability Court is very clear on the issue of fake refunds. The learned Judge of the Court has absolved the appellant in his Order dated 04.05.2004 that M/s Arnjad Ali Khan, Auditor, Sales Tax, Multan and Abdul Khaliq were the actual culprits who had withdrew a huge amount in connivance with each other and by forging the document. 'After this pronouncement nothing remains to be proved against the appellant. It is held in 2001 SCMR 269 that if disciplinary proceedings are simultaneously taken against a civil servant on the same allegations departmentally and in a Court of law and the civil servant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him by the Court, the departmental proceedings automatically become void and cannot be (sic). Since the criminal charges, were not established before a competent Court of Law and the appellant was acquitted on specific charges, the departmental proceedings on the same charges, would be wholly irrelevant and unjustified Further, when it was proved that Amjad Ali Khan. Auditor. Sales Tax, Multan and Abdul Khaliq were the actual culprits why the appellant was punished. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1996 SCMR 413 & 1350, 2001 PLC (CS) 1037 and 2004 PLC (CS) 01 that no person can be punished for the fault of others.
7. 7.Foregoing in view, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned penalty order dated 09.09.2014 and appellate order dated 27.02.2015 and restore the appellant to his original status with all consequential benefits.
8. 8.There shall be no order as to costs.
9. 9.Parties shall be informed accordingly.