ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN). ---Appellant, Mr. Muhammad, Tariq Yahya, was working as Stenotypist, in the Office of the Excise and Taxation Department, Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT). The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and after observing all the formalities, his services were terminated by order dated 13-12-1995. Being aggrieved, he filed departmental appeal, having received no reply he has now come before this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. Mr. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, Advocate appeared for the appellant and argued that the charges against the appellant are vague and not proved as there was no documentary evidence against him. It is submitted that the services of the appellant have been terminated but under the E&D Rules, 1973, termination is not a penalty and the order is illegal. He has referred to 1985 PLC (C.S.) 478; 1986 PLC (C.S.) 812 and 1989 PLC (C.S.) 407. Therefore, this order is bad in law and may be set aside. It is argued that by way of termination, he cannot be debarred from service which has been done in this case, which is contrary to law.
3. The comments have been filed and we have heard Mr. Khalid Abbas Khan, Federal Counsel for the respondents. It is argued that the appellant was found guilty of the charge at regular inquiry and the competent Authority after issuing final show-cause notice imposed the penalty of termination. It is submitted that although there is no such penalty in the E&D Rules, but it can be inferred that it amounted to removal from service, and this omission on the part of the respondents cannot vitiate or make the whole proceedings illegal.
4. The appellant was charged on the following allegations: "(1) That you have misplaced official files of the to stolen cars recently recovered by Islamabad Police having Registration Nos. IDE-7943, IDE-7593. ,
(2) That File No. IDC-5481 of another stolen car was issued in your name from record room on 13-11- 1991 but was never returned by you and the said file is still outstanding against your name as per the record.
(3) That you have been making entries in the Registration register without having the authority to do the same.
(4) That you have been doing physical verification of the vehicles without having the authority to do the same.
(5) That the preliminary enquiry has revealed that you have exceeded your capacity as Stenotypist to gain monetary benefit and as such you are guilty of misconduct and corruption.
(6) That your abovementioned conduct reveals that you are guilty of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption as defined in Rule 3 of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973."
He replied that he being a Stenotypist was not supposed to deal with the files, therefore, the allegation of misplacing the files is baseless as he was nor custodian of the official record. With regard to making entries, he submitted that he was, under verbal orders of Raja Muhammad Saleem, Excise Inspector, asked to make entries in the register which was never objected by the departmental authorities. Regular inquiry was conducted and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are as under: "I have gone through the record and carefully examined the statements of witnesses. It has been revealed that:--
(i) Mr. Tariq Yahya was working as Stenotypist of .E.T.O., having absolutely no business with the entries of register;
(ii) All the files which were missing from the office were entered in the register by Mr. Tariq Yahya including the to Vehicles Nos.IDE-7943 and IDE-7593.
(i.e) The file of Car No. IDE-5481 was issued in the name. Of Tariq Yahya, which was never returned to the office.
Therefore, in the light of above conclusion it is abundantly clear that the three charges 1, 2 and 3 stand proved against Mr. Tariq Yahya. There is, however, no direct evidence as regards the other charges, therefore, they are not proved against the accused."
According to the inquiry report, charges 1, 2 and 3 have been proved but it is stated in the report that there was no direct evidence as regards the other charges. The appellant being a Stenotypist had absolutely nothing to do with the entries in Registration Register, which according to his own admission he had been doing at the instance of Raja Muhammad Saleem. Excise Inspector. All the witnesses produced at the regular inquiry unanimously stated that the appellant had been making entries in Registration Register and the appellant could not rebut that he was not involved in the charges of missing of official files and making entries in the Registration Register for which he was not authorised to do that business. It may also be observed that even in the preliminary inquiry conducted by Assistant Commissioner, it was found that the appellant was involved in about 8 cars theft cases at various stations of Islamabad and during the inquiry he had disclosed that he had been preparing bogus documents inconvenience with one Tariq Mehmood Gondal for his stolen cars for consideration of Rs.20,000 per vehicle, for which after completion of challans, the cases were referred to Courts by police for trial. Although this matter is not before us but the admitted position is that the appellant is involved in this scandal and charges 1, 2 and 3 stand proved against him which are outcome of his conduct of involving in these scandals. The competent Authority after serving on him the final show-cause notice imposed the penalty of termination by order dated 13-12-1995. This order is under attack and it is reproduced as under:--
The services of Mr. Tariq Yahya, Stenotypist of Excise and Taxation Department, Islamabad are terminated with effect from 1st December, 1995. He is also debarred from all future employments under Government or semi-Government organisations. His particulars are given below:-- 1.Name Muhammad Tariq Yahya, S/Typist 2.Father's name Rana Muhammad Mursleen Khan 3.Date of birth 11-11-1961 4.Permanent address Village and P.O. Piplan, Street Jamia Masjid, Madni Mohallah Kasuban, District Mianwali.
5.N.I.C. No. 241-61-019319.
6.Height 5'-7".
7.Mark of identification.
Wound mark on the nose.
(Sd.)
Deputy Commissioner/D.G.E&T, Islamabad."
By this order the services of the appellant have been terminated with effect from 1-12-1995 and he has also been debarred from future employment under Government or semi-Government Organisations. It may be mentioned here that such words 'debarred from future employment' are normally used in the orders whereby penalty of dismissal from service is imposed on accused official by the competent Authority. Under Rule 4 of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 minor and major penalties have been defined but 'termination from service' is not a punishment provided in these, rules, and to this extent the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity, but it does not make the order illegal ab initio, and it clearly amounts removal.
5. We, therefore, are of the view that since the whole proceedings were taken under E&D Rules and so also the impugned order, the penalty of 'termination of service' shall be deemed to be "removal from service" and we order accordingly. As already observed in the concluding paragraph 5 the appellant is not debarred from future service. Consequently the appeal having no merit is dismissed with costs.