' SYED EKRAM HUSSAIN JAFRI, (MEMBER).---All the above Appeals (Nos.595, 596, 597, 599 and 603- K/97) involving common points of law and facts hence the same are heard together and being disposed of by this single judgment placed in leading Appeal No,595(K) of 1997.
2. Heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the entire record of the case including the pleadings and the documents of the parties and studied the law relied upon and produced by their learned counsel.
' Appeal No,595(K) of 1997:
3. According to the Memo. Of appeal, the appellant, an employee of UBL, was dismissed by the respondent-Bank vide impugned order dated 26-1-1997, He challenged the same (impugned dismissal order) by filing petition under section 25-A of IRO before Sindh Labour. Court. It dismissed the same on account of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Thereafter, he filed, on 8-9-1997, the instant service appeal before this Tribunal. The instant service appeal was dismissed in limine. The Service Tribunal had held that the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997, whereby the section 2-A was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, was not retrospective.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside such like orders rendered in other service appeals of the nature (sic) Service Tribunal and held, that the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997 was retrospective in nature, in its judgment reported as 1999 SCMR 197. Then the instant appeal was admitted for final hearing. The appellant has prayed that impugned order be set aside and he be reinstated with back benefits for the reasons that the same (impugned order) has been passed to victimize him and the same is in utter disregard to relevant rules and principle of natural justice and fairplay. He has also pleaded that he has been condemned unheard without holding any proper inquiry.
4. The respondent has contested the appeal by filing legal objections and reply statement. The respondent has legally pleaded that the appeal is not maintainable as it is time-barred and the reliefs, as prayed by the appellant, cannot be granted by this Tribunal. On factual side the respondent, after specifically denying the allegations of the appeal, has pleaded that the impugned order is quite legal and the same has been passed according to rules after a departmental inquiry. It has specifically asserted that an inquiry was held in which the appellant, despite an opportunity, did not participate and the same (inquiry) had to be concluded ex parte and that the competent Authority has passed the impugned order dated 26-1-1997. It has, therefore, pleaded that the appeal be dismissed on law and fact.
5. Mr. Lateef Saghar, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the citations reported as 1999 SCMR 197, 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1359 in support of his contentions that the effective date of operation of section 2-A of the Act is 10-6-1997 whereas Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned counsel for the respondent has relied the rulings reported in 1999 SCMR 1237 and PLD 1981 SC 225 in support of his contentions that the impugned order is neither bad nor illegal for want of second show- cause notice in the circumstances of the case and for the reasons that there is no such provision in the rules applicable to the appellant.
6. In view of the facts that the employees of the organization, like the respondent, were declared civil servants for purpose of bringing their grievance before this Tribunal by way of appeal by virtue of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on promulgation of. Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997, duly notified in the official Gazette of Government of Pakistan on 10.6-1997 and that the appellant approached this Tribunal with the instant service appeal on 8-9-1997 undisputedly, we hold that the instant service appeal is not time-barred being filed within the prescribed period of 90 days from 10-6-1997, as the operation of the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997 took place With effect from 10-6-1997, the date on which it was notified through official Gazette for public information. We see that Service Tribunals has got powers under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to grant the Relief to the appellant in terms of setting aside carrying or modifying the order appealed against, the order effective the terms and conditions of the aggrieved civil servants like the appellant. We, therefore, hold that the appeal is within time and is maintainable under law.
7. As regards merits of the case, the appellant, in our view, has failed to make out his case on merits for the following reasons.
8. The record of the appeal (pleadings of the parties) indicates that the respondent has filed the documents including the charge-sheet, the notice of inquiry and entire inquiry proceedings alongwith the Inquiry Report in support of its assertions to the effect that the appellant was proceeded according to the law and the impugned order has been passed quite legally by the competent Authority on the basis of proper departmental inquiry in which he (the appellant) did not participate dispute an opportunity to participate in the inquiry.
9. Admittedly a charge-sheet/show-cause notice dated 11-12-1996 was issued which is reproduced hereunder:-- "SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ' It has been reported that you alongwith Amjad Ali Siddiqi, Assistant, Ghulam Mustafa, Cashier, Ghulam Farooq, Cashier, Fazal Hussain Umrani, Cashier left your place of work without seeking permission from your superiors.
' You alongwith the above named employees occupied the open space in front of PLS Counters at LI. Chundrigar Road Branch by putting a table and chair and two setters meant for use by customers. These acts were done by you on 8-12-1996, 9-12-1996 and 10-12-1996 for the whole working days.
' The above acts on your part constitute misconduct under the law.
' You are hereby called upon to explain in writing within a period of seven (7) days of the receipt of this notice as to why disciplinary action under law should not be taken against you.
' Please note that if you fill to explain as stipulated above, the management may proceed ex parte." ' was served on him calling upon him specifically in writing his explanation within a period of 7 days from the receipt of the notice. Undisputedly the appellant did not reply the said show-cause notice but wrote a letter dated 15-12-1996 to the SDM Aram Bagh South, Karachi to restrain the respondent-Bank to harm him.
10. The document of the respondent-Bank dated 21-12-1996 indicates that after expiry of 7 days from 11-12-1996 and having received no reply thereto from the appellant, the respondent ordered an inquiry then Mr. Qasim Anjum, VP (SAMG-K) was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the matter. It has been proved by the respondent's document dated 26-12-1996 that the appellant was apprised of the fact that he has not submitted any reply to the charge-sheet/show-cause notice and that an inquiry has been ordered to be conducted by the duly appointed Inquiry Officer namely Mr. Qasim Anjum, Vice-President, and that he was called to attend the inquiry alongwith the witnesses on the stipulated date, time and place which is quite evident from the very notice of inquiry dated 26-12- 1996, reproduced hereunder:-- "You were charge-sheeted vide Charge-Sheet No,IIC:ZC:430:96 dated 11-12-1996. You did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet. It has, therefore, been decided to conduct enquiry into allegations of misconduct against you.
' Mr. Qasim Anjum, Vice-President has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and the enquiry has been scheduled for 15-1-1997 at 10-00 a.m. At SAMG (Karachi Region), State Life Building No,11, Abdullah Haroon Road, Opposite Zainab Market, Karachi.
' You are hereby called upon to attend the enquiry alongwith your witnesses, if any.
' Please note that if you fail to attend as stipulated above the enquiry may proceed ex parte." which was sent to him by registered post at his residential address.
11. In our view the Inquiry Officer had rightly held in above situation that the notice of the inquiry sent through registered post was received by him. In this respect reliance can very safely be made on the law of 1997 PLC ((*.S.) 1044 wherein it has been held that service, through registered post addressed to proper address, would be sufficient to hold that the service/letter was received by the addressee and that the person, so addressed on his correct address, would not be allowed to take plea that he was not served personally. The appellant has not disputed the correctness of his address given in the notice of inquiry dated 26-12-1996. Therefore, we hold that the appellant was served with notice of inquiry whereby he was apprised of the fact of the notice reproduced above.
12. We find available in the record, the inquiry proceedings with the remarks of the Inquiry Officer that he had no choice but to proceed ex parte against the appellant who did not choose to participate in the proceedings by appearing before him on the date, time and place of proceedings. He recorded the statement of witnesses with the remarks that no cross-examination of the witnesses could be conducted on account of absence of the appellant. Thus the proceedings of the inquiry were concluded ex parte on 19-1-1997 by the Inquiry Officer who prepared and submitted inquiry report on 20-1-1997 with the findings that charges against the appellants were proved in view of the statement of witness. He finally concluded his inquiry report with the remarks that he found the appellant guilty of misconduct as alleged against him.
13. Thereafter, the competent Authority, on receipt of the Inquiry Report alongwith inquiry proceedings, has passed the impugned order dated 26-1-1997.
14. In view of the documents available with the pleadings of the respondent, discussed above, we cannot accept the contention/plea of the appellant that no departmental inquiry has been held and that impugned order has been passed without giving him any chance of defence and personal hearing.
15. We have also gone through grievance notice dated 24-2-1997. It is clear from its perusal that he has not alleged therein that he had been condemned unheard and was kept out of the inquiry proceedings intentionally by the respondent of the Inquiry Officer by sending inquiry notice on incorrect residential address, therefore cannot be accepted the plea that the respondent had passed the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant without holding any inquiry and the impugned order is illegal and suffers from legal infirmity as asserted by the appellant in his Memo.
Of appeal and argued by his learned counsel.
16. It has rightly been contended by Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank that the appellant has neither contended/pleaded in his appeal that the impugned order is bad for final show-cause notice and personal hearing before its passage nor he is entitled to the same, in view of the well-settled law reported as 1999 SCMR 1237 and PLD 1981 SC 225 wherein it has been held that non-issuance of subsequent notice calling the employee to show cause against the proposed penalty as relevant service rules did not provide the requirement of second show-cause notice. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, has contended that the rules of 1st Women Bank Ltd., Karachi discussed under the above citations are quite identical to the UBL (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 application to the appellant in the instant case.
17. For the foregoing reasons and our discussion on facts and law, we hold that instant service appeal fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith all identical appeals mentioned in the title with no order as to costs.
18. Parties concerned be informed accordingly.