' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Syed Ghazanfar Ali Chishty was a Senior Accounts Clerk in the Telegraph and Telephone Department. He was removed from service vide order dated 1541-1981 made by the Senior Accounts Officer-cum-Deputy Accountant-General, Karachi, under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. He preferred departmental appeal to the General Manager, Karachi Telecommunication Region on 11-2-1982. He was informed under letter dated 15-9-1982 that his appeal could not be entertained as it had not been filed within the prescribed time limit of one month. He made a mercy appeal to, the Director General, T & T, Islamabad on 24-11-1982. His mercy appeal was forwarded to the Director, Telephones-II, Karachi Telecom Region, who, by his letter dated 9-8-1984, informed the appellant that it was decided that he shall be appointed afresh as a Senior Accounts Clerk and the proceedings shall be taken de novo in accordance with the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973.
The appellant reported for duty on 12-8-1984. He was not taken on duty and the matter was put under inter-departmental correspondence. Ultimately, order of his fresh appointment as Senior Accounts Clerk was issued by the Senior Accounts Officer. T.R., on 7-11-1984. He protested against the nature of the order of his fresh appointment. However, he was taken on duty as a fresh appointee in the post of Senior Accounts Clerk on 17-11-1984. Thereafter, he was issued a charge- sheet dated 3-4-1985. He preferred this appeal on 14-4-1985 to seek the following reliefs:-
(i) Delcaring the order contained in last para of letter No, S34/AOTR/27, dated 9-8-1984 of the respondent No,4 and all subsequent proceedings adopted and actions taken thereunder by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in respect of fresh appointment and charge-sheet dated 3-4-1985 is/are illegal, invalid, against the law and contrary to the rules are liable to be set aside.
(ii) Further declaring that the appellant be treated as re-instated into service with effect from 15-11- 1981 when he was removed from service by the respondent No, 5 and declined to take the appellant on duty from the said date as per decision contained in para. 2 of letter dated 9-8-1984 of the respondent No, 4 with all consequential reliefs and back benefits.
(iii) Grant any other and further relief or reliefs which the Honourable Tribunal may deem proper under the circumstances and nature of the case.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of fresh appointment of the appellant dated 7-11-1984 issued by Senior Accounts Officer, Telephone Revenues, Karachi on the ground that since the Director Telephones-II, KTR, the competent authority, had taken decision that the proceedings against the appellant entailing his removal from service were not taken in accordance with the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and fresh proceedings were to be taken, the appellant was deemed to have been reinstated in service but it was not to be treated as fresh appointment and, therefore, the stigma of fresh appointment needs to be struck down, particularly in the circumstances that fresh proceedings have been initiated against him and he has been charge-sheeted.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal contending that the appellant has not challenged any order in appeal, much less the order of his fresh appointment and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. He has next contended that the appellant did not exhaust the remedy of departmental appeal before filing this appeal and the appeal is not maintainable on that ground too. He has further contended that the appeal is time-barred.
4. The departmental proceedings against the appellant were initiated by a show-cause notice dated 26-9-1981. He was alleged to have misbehaved with his boss, the Accounts Officer. His reply to the show-cause notice was found unsatisfactory. Accordingly, he was removed from service vide order dated 15-11-1981. His departmental appeal was not entertained as being time-barred as per communication to him dated 15-9-1982. The chapter of the departmental proceedings stood exhausted there. The filing of mercy appeal did not lend continuity to the departmental proceedings as there is no such provision under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. He did not prefer appeal to this Tribunal. Further proceedings consequent to his mercy appeal did not restore to him the original position in service. However, he was lucky that he was given fresh appointment in the post he was removed from, but he was unlucky that order was made for de novo proceedings against him. He did resist the order of de novo proceedings against him, but he did not succeed and he was ultimately charge-sheeted on 3-4-1985. It has been discussed above that the order of removal of the appellant from service dated 15-11-1981 became final on turning down his departmental appeal vide letter dated 15-9-1982. Moreover, he has not preferred appeal against that order. That order was not recalled but the appellant was accommodated by giving him fresh appointment in the post he was removed from and that order could not be deemed to be the order of his reinstatement. Since the appellant was not reinstated in service after his removal from service, he is not liable to be proceeded against afresh on the same charge he already stood punished for. The appellant can, therefore, maintain the appeal against that part of the orders dated 8-9-1984 and 7-11-1984 which direct holding afresh of departmental proceedings against the appellant on the ground of misconduct which formed basis for the order of his removal from service passed on 15-11-1981. The appeal for seeking that much relief does not seem to be time-barred.
5. The appeal is allowed to the extent that no proceedings shall be taken against the appellant under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) B Rules, 1973 on the charge-sheet dated 3-4-1985, while the appeal stands dismissed in respect of the relief sought for reinstatement in service.