Ch. Shahid Naseer , Member .--Briefly stated the facts of the instant service appeal are that, the appellant was appointed as Mail Peon (BS-02) and later on promoted as Clerk (BS-07) on 24.4.2008. He was awarded with a major penalty of "Removal from Service" vide order dated 20.10.2010, which was. set aside by this Tribunal on 18.7.201 1 and in consequence thereof he was reinstated with the direction to conduct a de novo inquiry . In compliance thereof, the said judgment, an order of inquiry dated 17.10.201 1 was issued and the Authority communicated the charges alongwith the statement of allegations. Thereon, the appellant demanded some documents for submitting defence statement, but in vain. The inquiry was conducting without defence statement of the appellant and on 14.2.2012, he was called for inquiry and got him arrested to FIA wherefrom he was honourably acquitted by the Special Judge (Central), Lahore on 25.7.2014. The respondent-Department was directed to complete the de novo proceedings preferably within a period of four months, but the same was not completed within the specified time, nor moved any CPLA before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Against the appellant, a punishment order dated 9.7.2012 was passed in the shape of "Dismissal from Government Service" with immediate effect. There-against, a departmental appeal was moved from Jail, which was rejected ay the Appellate Authority on 20.5.2016.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned orders are illegal and against the facts.
He is an employee of BS-9 and DSPS (BS-17) is not the Authority under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 rather an officer of BS-19 is the Authority as per Schedule-IV of Post Office Manual Volume-III. Actually the payment of Money Orders in question was the duty of the Postman and not of the Postmaster , who took the signatures from the appellant on the place "paid by me" instead of Postmaster's place available on M.0 Forms due to rush of work and he was absconded from office without any intimation.
Moreover , neither any witness was recorded nor he was provided with a chance for cross-examining the witnesses.
The de novo inquiry was not conducted according to the rules and regulations. Hence, the impugned orders dated 9.7.2012 and 20.5.2016 be set aside and he be reinstated into service with all the back benefits.
3. Vehemently contesting the appeal, the respondent-Department in their written comments have maintained that the documents demanded by the appellant had already been supplied to him as is evident from his service appeal dated 12.7.2010, even then he has failed to submit his defence statement, despite of many reminders. Therefore, the inquiry was conducted without defen ce statement. Moreover , the DSPS is the Competent Authority of the appellant as per Revised Schedule of Administrative Powers. The learned A.A.G has contended that the punishment was awarded by the Competent Authority , according to the offence committed by the appellant. He was found involved in misappropriation in huge Governmental money amounting to Rs. 1571033/-. He was provided with proper opportunity to defend himse lf, but he had failed to avail the same. The penalty has rightly been imposed upon the appellant, hence the instant appeal be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. As record reflects, this Tribunal in its judgment dated 18.7.201 1, passed in respect of the appellant, has observed as under: "5. In the charges involving misappropriat ion an Inquiry Officer is required to record statements of witnesses. A right is to be given to the accused official to cross-examine such witness who appear against him. In the present case this procedure was not followed. In the circumstances the penalty imposed upon the appellant, on inadequate inquiry , cannot be held.
6. Even otherwise the charge of absence from duty is rather vague. The period during which the appellant had allegedly remained absent from duty should have been mentioned to enable him to give his reply . Since the charge was not specific he could not give a proper reply .
7. For the above reasons, the appeal is accepted. The penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside. The case is remanded to the respondents for holding a fresh inquiry on all the charges. The denovo proceedings may be completed, preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of the judgment is received in the office of the respondents. The payment of back benefits shall depend on the outcome of fresh proceedings."
6. In compliance thereto, an Order of Inquiry dated 17.10.201 1 was passed by the Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and Mr. Sarwar Hussain, Senior Postmaster , Wazirabad, HPO was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to scrutinize the conduct of the accused official through formal proceedings. The Statement of Allegations was also served upon the appellant. On 9.7.2012 the punishing order was passed, therein it had been observed that the appellant committed the acts of omission and commission, constituted Inefficiency , Corruption and Misconduct on account of Statement of Allegations. The para- 2 of the said order i.e. 9.7.2012 reflects as under: "2. Whereas, an order of enquiry under Section-5(1) under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended) was issued vide this office Memo No. B-1/Ijaz Ahmad Bajwa dated 28.11.201 1 by appointing Mr. Abid AH raan, the then ASPS, Shakjargarh Sub Dn. now ASPS Daska Sub Dn. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report under No. B-1/D.E/20 11 dated 22.2.2012 and proved all the allegations leveled against the accused of ficial in the statement of allegations."
On the basis of the Inquiry Report, a Show-Cause Notice was issued to the accuse d on 22.2.2012. Subsequently , a written statement of, the accused official was received on 20.6.2012 through Superintendent Jail, Lahore. The appellant was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 5.7.2012, but he' had failed to convince the Authority about his innocence. Thereon, Respondent No. 1 Mr. Tauqeer Ahmad Khan, imposed a major penalty of "Dismissal from Government Service with immediate ef fect," which is as under:
5. Now, therefore, I Touqeer Ahmed Khan, Divisional Superintendent Postal Servic es, Sialkot, being the competent authority under Section-2(a.a) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended) hereby impose the major penalty of "DISMISSAL FROM GOVT SERVICE WITH IMMEDIA TE EFFECT" upon Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Bajwa, Postmaster (U/S) Kharota Syedan P .O. now locked up in Camp Jail Ichra Mazang Road Lahore."
An appeal there-against was moved, which was rejected vide order dated 20.5.2016, which has been written in detail and also mentioned the previous. proceedings. Having granted personal hearing on 20.5.2016 his appeal was rejected by the Respondent No 2. From the respondents' side, photocopy of the statements of the appellant and some other persons have been placed on the record, which were recorded on 14. 7. 2010. It means that no fresh witness was recorded nor any opportunity of cross-examination was granted to the appellant as directed by this Tribunal in the judgment dated 18.7.201 1, therein it has specifically mentioned a fresh inquiry on all the charges be made. The respondent-Department has not complied with the direction as issued by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 18.7.201 1. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 9.7.2012 and 20.5.2016 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the Inquiry Officer, who is not well conversant of the procedure and instructions for conducting the disciplinary proceedings, may cause harassment to the accused civil servant and wastage of time. Therefore, for conducting a regular inquiry , a well conversant Inquiry Officer may be appointed to conduct the same. Relianc e is placed on Secretary to Government of N.-W .F.P and 2 others v, Saifur Rehman (1997 SCMR 1073 ). The reason to make such an observation is that due to inefficiency and ill-knowledge of the Inquiry Officer as well as of the Authority , a lot of time has gone wasted; and also caused inconvenience to the related persons. Hence a fresh inquiry be conducted and proper respective evidence be recorded to learn the real facts. The respondent-Department is bound to comply with the direction of the Tribunal, passed in judgment, dated 18.7.201 1. Hence the impugned orders are set aside.
The appeal is accepted. The appellant' is reinstated into service with all the back benefits. The respondent- Department is directed to finalize a de novo inquiry/fresh inquiry within a period of six months definitely . The appellant is entitled to the back benefits subject to the outcome of the de novo proceedings.
7. No order as to costs.