Brief fuels of the case are that the Petitioner was a 'Gangman' employed with Respondents (Pakistan Railways). He was issued Show Cause Notice dated 19.08.2014 for misconduct. His reply dated 22.05.2014 was not found satisfactory and accordingly he was compulsory retired by the competent Authority vide order dated 17.10.2014. His departmental appeal was rejected on 27.06.2015. He then filed appeal with the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed, vide order dated 01.10.2018. The Federal Service Tribunal declared him a 'Workman' and accordingly held that the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal unlawfully, hence dismissed his appeal on the question of maintainability. The Petitioner instead of filing appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 or closing right forum for redressal of his grievance, filed the instant Constitution Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the Respondents, accordingly submitted that this constitution Petition was not maintainable and that the Petitioner should have filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan or he should have filed a representation before the Labour Court after he was declared a 'Workman' by the Federal Service Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Officer (Respondent No. 4) who issued the Show Cause Notice dated 19.08.2014 was not competent Authority and after getting the defence from the Petitioner, he submitted his case directly to Respondent No. 3 for appropriate orders who imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement merely on the alleged charge of Rs. 1000/- taken as bribe; He submitted that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, carom non-judice and malafide in law and fact. He submitted that the impugned orders were passed in complete derogation of the law laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Allah Yar v.
General Manager, Railways Headquarters. Lahore and another (2001 SCMR 256). Relying upon the referred judgment, he submits that not only the order of major penalty was without jurisdiction but also the appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) mechanically rejected the plea of the Petitioner and did not consider the material on record including the affidavits of the Petitioner and his father in the inquiry proceedings. He submitted that the disciplinary proceedings was unlawfully initiated under Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 and Railways Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 which were wrongly invoked. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on cases of Tariq Jameel Butt and another v. Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd. (PECO) through Managing Director and another (2010 PLC (C.S.) 204) and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another u, Gohar Riaz (2004 SCMR 1662).
4. The perusal of the impugned orders transpires that the same have been passed without considering the rebuttal of the Petitioner and examination of material on record with a preset mind in a mechanical manner. The impugned orders are non-speaking and without reasoning. It is quire apparent that the competent authorities have not heard the Petitioner themselves. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Allah Yar (Supra) has observed as follows: "9. The appeal filed by the appellant has not been dilated upon diligently but has been disposed of in a haphazard and mechanical manner without taking into consideration as to whether all the mandatory formalities were completed as .envisaged under the Rules before initiation of disciplinary proceedings but no one has bothered about it which is really pitiable. The appellate forum is required to examine each and every aspect of the matter in depth and only thereafter a conclusion should be drawn in accordance with record, evidence, prevalent laws, rules made therein, principles of natural justice and settled norms of justice. "In the case of Abdul Hafeez v.
Chairman, Municipal Corporation, Lahore (PLD 1967 Lah. 1251) the principles of natural justice were brought out in the following terms: "In the absence of anything to the contrary, the approach of quasi- judicial tribunal must always be judicial and conform to the principles of natural justice to maintain the rule of law. This is the essence of justice and the very fountainhead which must on no account be allowed to be polluted.
No doubt there are no uniform standards of natural justice applicable in all cases and the rule is an classic one. Its requirement may vary with the constitution of the quasi-judicial tribunals and bodies having regard to the functions to be performed by them and powers and duties entrusted to them the nature and the subject-matter of the dispute and all others relevant circumstances are to be kept in view in applying this golden rule. Nonetheless in this respect certain broad principles are accepted on all hands. They are deducible from the two Latin maxims: Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" (no one should be a judge in his own cause and the judges should be above suspicion. (The other maxim of no less importance is "audi alteram pattern" (hear the other side)."
5. In view of above discussion and perusal of both the impugned orders, it transpires that all and every aspect of the case have not been considered while awarding major penally upon the Petitioner on the charge of Rs. 1000/- taken as bribe in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Allah. Yar (Supra). As such the impugned orders, dated 17.10.2014 and 14.09.2015 are set aside, Show Cause Notice shall be deemed pending which shall be decided afresh on merits after hearing the Petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of above referred judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and after recording reasons on the material furnished by the Petitioner.
6. This petition is disposed of in the above terms.