Tauqeer Ahmed Khan, Member. Inspector Rangers Nadeem Khan has filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 assailing the order dated 20.12.2021 through which a penalty of "reduction to the rank of Inspector" was imposed upon him. His departmental appeal met with rejection order dated / 14.2.2022.
2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the appeal are that, while the appellant was serving Pakistan Rangers and posted as Deputy Superintendent Rangers at 63 Wing ASGR, a charge sheet dated 04.12.2021. containing the following allegations, were served upon him: "Misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, While serving in 63 Wing Abdullah Shah Chazi Rangers Karachi in 2020-21, committed the following offences: a. 1st Charge. Impersonating himself as Wing Commander and misusing his powers/authority for personal benefits. b. 2nd Charge. Tarnishing image of the force by extorting money of Rs.1,465,000/- (Rupees fourteen lac sixty five thousand only). c. 3rd Charge. Accepting gratification of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) in shape of rent payment of a Taxi, utilized by him for visit to Punjab and further Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) in cash of personal use while he was on Privilege Leave with effect from 15 April 2020 to 15 May 2021. d. 4th Charge. Giving access to civilian in Wing Office/Tea Bar area once he was armed with pistol. e. 5th Charge. Pressurizing his under command to act in a manner to facilitate himself to accomplish dare devils. f. 6th Charge. Not cooperating with inquiry board and telling lie to hide the facts."
Appellant replied the charge sheet and denied all the charges and adverse allegations, by giving a detailed reply in order to disprove the charges and without considering the same, impugned penalty was awarded. He preferred departmental appeal which was rejected vide order dated 14.4.2022; hence, this appeal.
3. Parawise comments submitted by the respondents where certain legal objections are raised including, "Appellant was regular employee of Pakistan Rangers and his terms and conditions of service are governed under West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance (No XIV of 1959) and rules framed thereunder"; since by virtue of Pakistan Rangers (Amendment) Ordinance 9XIII of 1985) in Section-1 after sub-section (2) amendment was made, "the provisions of this 'Ordinance and the rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and rules framed thereunder" and that pursuant to above amendment, Pakistan Rangers Ordinance has overriding effect to other laws enforced for the time being: furthermore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967 were framed which shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder.
In view of above amendment, it is thus obvious that in view of any conflict between the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, the provision of later would prevail over the provision of former. 1998 SCMR 1081 and 2004 PLC (CS) 1187 have been quoted/relied upon by the respondents in their comments. It was thus pleaded that the employees of Pakistan Rangers, like officials of other para-military organizations, are to be dealt with under their special laws, as such, disciplinary proceedings against the appellant are undertaken under the said laws and they are conferred the status of Civil Servant for the limited purposes and cannot avail the recourse of Civil Servants Act 1973 as well as precedents of law enunciated by the Apex Court to that effect; hence, this Tribunal while deciding the merit of the case of an employee of para military force in efficiency and disciplinary matter has to make clear distinction between the two category of civil servant i.e. the employees of para-military forces governed under their special laws and those civil servants governed under Civil Servants Act as they are not par. Pursuant to rule-4 of the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1967, procedure of summary award of punishment are provided, whereas, procedure for conducting regular though provided earlier under Rule-5 to 13 has been presently omitted by the legislature; hence, in terms of special law i.e. Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1967, no procedure of regular departmental inquiry is provided, however, the competent authority in exercise of powers conferred under rule-4 has ordered the departmental Court of inquiry against the appellant in order to unearth the facts and to determine quantum of allegations leveled against him and to provide fair and transparent opportunity to defend himself son as to eliminate the probabilities and apprehension of appellant to condemn unheard.
On merits, it was stated that appellant was also awarded reprimand on 07.2.2020 while he was serving in 71 Wing Bhittain Rangers on charge of being involved in undesirable activities and such fact was admitted by the appellant during the Court of inquiry in the instant case; hence, claim of appellant with regard to his unblemished record does not reflect from the record. Since the respondents before issuing charge sheet has ordered for conducting Court of inquiry to unearth the serious allegations alleged against him and examined sic witnesses including three material civilian witnesses in presence of appellant and he was also offered to cross examine the said witnesses by the Court of Inquiry, consequently, he has cross examined civilian witnesses namely Jamil Ahmed and Ghulam Abbas (PWs-4 & 5), therein contacts and relations with appellant with civilian vis-a-vis allegations stand established and said witnesses have fully implicated the appellant into the alleged desirable activities. The appellant has also recorded his statement and replied to questions asked by the Court of inquiry in detail consisting of 83 questions, however, appellant has admitted the alleged connections with the civilians and admitted the facts and circumstances narrated by the said witnesses in their statement hence in the light of opinion and recommendations of the Court of inquiry, appellant was found guilty of impersonation and misusing his power/authority for personal benefits, besides this, charges of extortion, accepting illegal gratification, giving access to civilian in Wing Offices with arms, pressurizing his under commands to act in a manner to facilitate himself to accomplish dare devils and as well as suppressing facts and non-cooperating with Court of inquiry stood established. The reply of appellant to the charge sheet is unsupported and uncorroborated with any piece of independent evidence and record; more so, no such request was made in his defence to produce evidence in support of his statement hence, the said reply was found unsatisfactory. Though the Court of inquiry has proved the allegations against the appellant and recommended strict disciplinary action against him, however, the respondents' authority while taking lenient view, penalty of reduction was imposed upon him, which is just and in accordance with law.
5 Heard the learned counsel for both sides at length; also perused the record and the evidence with their assistance including the case law referred.
6. During the course of arguments, it was vehemently contended on behalf of the respondents that the charge sheet produced by the appellant alongwith the memo of appeal is not the one he had actually submitted and during the course of arguments had placed the one submitted by the appellant before the respondents. On our querry, it was admitted by the learned counsel that the signature of the authority i.e. "Brigadier Deputy Director General Pakistan Rangers (Sindh) (Rouf Shahzad)" is same.
7. The charges as leveled in both the charge sheets are same which have also been compared by us and has also been reproduced hereinabove. Date of issue is also one and the same i.e. "4 December 2021", only there is a difference in submission i.e. in the one placed by the appellant date is "4 December 2021" and in the other placed by the respondents the date is "06 December 2021".
8. The charges are totally ambiguous, not clear, no date, time or place has been mentioned in any of the charges i.e. when the occurrence took place; before whom the appellant impersonated himself as Wing Commander; from whom extorted money; from whom accepted gratification. On this point, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 2007 PLC (CS) 400 (Secretary, Education (Schools). Government of the Punjab, Lahore vs. Muhammad Akhtar, Ex- Headmaster) has been pleased to observe: "5. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet would Reveal That No Allegation of Misappropriation or embezzlement was leveled against the respondent. The main allegation appears to be 'unauthorized withdrawal of its 3,00,000" which was spent to purchase certain items without the completion of codal formalities. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner was asked at the outset that which particular provision of law. Rule made thereunder or financial regulation/direction was violated by the respondent, but amazingly no particular provision of law could be referred., "Non-observance of codal formalities" appears to be somewhat ambiguous charge and in our view particular formality required to be served or compliance whereof has allegedly not been made should have been pointed out in an unequivocal manner enabling the delinquent officer/official to furnish proper explanation. The codal formalities non compliance whereof has been alleged may be mandatory, directory or discretionary in mature having its own significance, import impact and therefore, general terminology "violation of codal formality" being exhaustive and vague in nature should not be used as it would not be in the interest of transparency, lair play and justice. The accusation and allegation must be of an specific nature.
This Tribunal in a case reported in 2012 PLC (CS) 184 (Naeem Iqbal & others vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan and 2 others) has also observed that: "4. The law requires that charge leveled against a civil servant in the disciplinary proceedings should be specific and comprehensive. A civil servant must know as to what particular allegation is leveled against him. In the present case, both the appellants were charged for committing illegal/ immoral activities. This charge was very vague. The alleged illegal/immoral activity had not been defined. It is stated by the departmental representative that both the appellants were involved in an incident in which a woman had been hired. This explanation given to us by the departmental representative does not meet the ends of justice. The appellant should have been informed of this allegation in the show cause notice. Specific roles should have been assigned to them. We are of the view that in the charge sheet allegations of general nature were leveled against both the appellants. On these ambiguous allegations no penalty could be imposed upon them.
The astonishing fact which we have noted in the charge sheet is the charge No. 6 where the allegation was leveled i.e. "Not cooperating with inquiry board and telling lie to hide the facts". The departmental Court of inquiry has been placed on record by the respondents alongwith their comments. The date of commencement is mentioned as "20 September 2021". How the allegation can be leveled against the appellant that he failed to cooperate with the inquiry board when the respondents itself conducted the inquiry on 20 September, 2021, it means that Court of inquiry was conducted prior to the issuance of charge sheet, which appears to be based on malafide. How the inquiry can be conducted prior to the issuance of charge sheet. First charge sheet has to be issued and then further proceedings can take place. It means that all the steps have already been taken i.e. commencement of Court of inquiry & examination of witnesses prior to the issuance of the charge sheet, not permissible under the law. This is in violation of the principles of natural justice We are fortified by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 2022 SCMR 1387 (Sohail Ahmad vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary of Interior Ministry, Islamabad and others) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it was observed that.
"10. Under Article 10A of our Constitution, the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right. On adding this fundamental right in our Constitution, the Court is bound to analyze in the facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain whether this indispensible right was afforded or deprived of. What is more, the principles of natural justice require that the delinquent should be afforded fair minded opportunity to converge, give explanation and contest it before he is found guilty and condemned.
Where any authority regulates and perform its affairs under a statute which provides the compliance of the principles of natural justice in a straightforward modus then application of natural justice should have been adhered to stringently and even in the second limb, notwithstanding, the statute is maintaining muteness on the area under discussion, the canons of natural should be lived up to. It is an elementary rule of law that no decision which is affecting the right of any person should be taken without providing an opportunity of being heard."
In yet another case, as reported in 2022 SCMR 1583 (Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another vs. Fida Muhammad and others) the principles of natural justice has been stressed. It was observed that, ".... The doctrine of natural justice is destined to safeguard individuals and whenever the civil rights human rights, Constitutional rights and other guaranteed rights under any law are found to be at stake. It is the religious duty of the Court to act promptly to shield and protect such fundamental rights of every citizen of this country. The principles of natural justice and fair mindedness is grounded in the philosophy of affording a right of audience before any detrimental action is taken in tandem with its ensuring constituent, that the foundation of any adjudication or order of a quasi- judicial authority, statutory body or any departmental authority regulated under some law must be rational and impartial and the decision maker has an adequate amount of decision making independence and the reasons of the decision arrived at should be amply well-defined, just, right and understandable, therefore it is incumbent that all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with a judicious and evenhanded approach to ensure justice according to tenor of law and without any violation of the principles of natural justice. In our Constitution, the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right. On inclusion of this fundamental right, we ought to explore and review the laws and allied Rules and Regulations to figure out that this indispensable right should not be deprived of. In the case of In the case of Tariq Aziz-ud-Din, Human Rights cases Nos. 8340, 9504-G, 13936-G, 13635-P and 14306-G to 14309-G of 2009 (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130), while referring to the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101 and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujrat 1997 (7) SCC 622, this Court held that the object of good governance cannot be achieved by exercising discretionary powers unreasonably. or arbitrarily and without application of mind. Such objective can be achieved by following rules of justness, fairness and openness in consonance with command of Constitution enshrined in different Articles including Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution Good governance is largely dependent upon upright, honest and strong bureaucracy particularly in written Constitution wherein important role of implementation has been assigned to bureaucracy".
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted an statement alongwith certain certificates, one of such commendation card was issued on 22.3.2019 by the then Chief of Army Staff (Qamar Javed Bajwa) The other commendation certificate (Class-I) was issued to him on 06.01.2004 issued by the then Director General Rangers (Sindh), Commendation Card Class-I was also issued to him in September, 2014 by the then Director General Pakistan Rangers (Sindh), another commendation card Class-II was issued to him on 22.7.2018 by the then Director General Pakistan Rangers Sindh; Certificate of appreciation by issued on 05.4.2019 by Major General Muhammad Saeed, HI (M), Headquarters, Pakistan Rangers (Sindh). It was argued that the appellant is an efficient and proficient employee of Pakistan Rangers and has been performing his duties diligently.
9. On behalf of the respondents, written synopsis have been filed quoting, inter-alia, certain questions-answer of the appellant. Same have also been perused by us.
10. We have noted that procedure for summary award of punishment has been defined in The Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency. Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967, having been filed by the respondents alongwith their comments, the same has been specified in clause-4. Rule-14 ibid provides issuance of suspension order under the heading, "Manner of suspension Clause-2 whereof is reproduced as under: "14(2). Any member of the Force charged with disobedience. Neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of his duty, or rendering himself unfit to discharge his duty, or of any other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, or of being corrupt or of having a reputation of being corrupt or reasonably suspected of being corrupt may be placed under suspension if, in the opinion of the competent authority, suspension is necessary or expedient.
In the case in hand, it has not been made known to the Court whether In appellant was placed or put under suspension or not or if not, opinion of the competent authority has not been placed on record for not putting the appellant under suspension. This rule appears to have not been followed or adhered to while initiating the proceedings against the appellant. As observed above, the Court of inquiry is prior to the issuance of charge i.e. charge sheet was issued later while the Court of inquiry was commenced earlier, which is against the principles of natural-justice, as has been observed by the Apex Court in the referred judgments. The citations relied upon on behalf of the respondents are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
11. In the wake of above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order of reduction passed against the appellant has not been passed in accordance with law and, therefore, it is set- aside alongwith the appellate rejection order. Appeal is thus allowed with direction to restore the appellant to his original rank of DSR with full back benefits. No order as to costs.
12. Parties be informed.