JUDGMENT AKBAR M. MEMON, MEMBER.-- Appellant ereinabove has challenged the order dated 4.7.2000, hereby he was imposed penalty of "reduction to lower stage in time scale by five steps".
The order in question is eproduced hereunder:- SUBJECT; DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINT MR. BEHROLAL VIRJANI DIVISIONAL ENGINEER DIRECTORY STR-III, KARACHI.
Mr. Behrolal Virjani, Divisional Engineer Director STR-II, Karachi was served with a charge- sheet vide this office letter of even number dated 30.12.1999, under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (as adopted by the PTCL).
2. The "authority" after having gone through the report of the inquiry officer, defence reply of the accused and other facts and circumstances of the case, has imposed penalty of "Reduction to lower stage in time scale by five steps" upon Mr. Behrolal Virjani, Divisional Engineer Director STR-I I, Karachi.
Sd/- (AZIZ-UR-REHMAN BABAR) DIRECTOR (STAFF-1)"
2. Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghori, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the present appellant had ntered the service of erstwhile Pakistan Telegraph and elephone Department now PTCL as Assistant Engineer (BPS- 7) on 21.11.1989. Throughout his career, his record emained unblemished and he used to perform his duties with honesty and diligence. While the appellant his duties witl honesty and diligence. While the appellant was working a Divisional Engineer Phones, Gulistan-e-]auhar Division, he wa directed to report to General Manager STR-II to work as D1 (Director STR-II, Karachi) where he was charge- sheeted 01 30.12.1999 which was replied. He has contended that the Enquiry Officer then conducted the enquiry where charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and were not proved and show-caua notice was issued which culminated in imposition of penalty a mentioned above. He has further contended that compel^ record was not shown in the enquiry which is evident from page Nos. 73 and 77 of the enquiry proceedings. He has alsl contended that on. Account of non-availability of record, th| enquiry was conducted which shows that the very enquiry wa not conducted judicially and the conclusion so arrived at I absence of adequate material is based on conjectures ah surmises, In the circumstances, he has conjectures an surmises, In the circumstances, he has contended that th impugned punishment dated 4.7.2000 be set aside with consequential benefits.
3. Mr. Umer Qureshi, learned counsel for respondents has argued that the enquiry was conducted in fair manner on which appellant has rightly been punished, has, however, admitted that proper record was not availably but the appellant during the course of the enquiry ought have made such protest and since it was not done, therefor^ it cannot be said that the record was inadequate and of punishment was imposed on findings which are based conjectures and surmises.
4. Before we proceed further, we want to make it cleJ that the impugned order dated 4.7.2000 whereby appellai was imposed penalty of "reduction to lower stage in time sca| by five steps" is based on the enquiry which was conducted Enquiry Officer Mr. Siddique Ali Bhutto, Divisional Enginel Phones, Nazimabad No. 3 (EXTL) Division STR-III, Karaclj Question No. 4 appear at page No. 75 of the enquj Vol.XXil Behrolal Virjani V. Pak. Telecom. Co. Ltd. LscS.C. 247 (Akbar M. Memon, Member) proceedings is pertinent, which is reproduced hereunder:- "4. What do you know about the missingness of very important record relating to this inquiry?"
Its reply is available on page 77 which is also reproduced hereunder:- "4. The all type of record never remains in custody of me. The missingness of record relating to my inquiry came in my knowledge when I started to answer the queries raised by SMT. The head clerk and NTC cleric and record keeper are responsible for the missingness of important record."
From the above question and answer it appears that there was no record and the entire enquiry in respect of charges Nos.4, 5, 7 and 8 are based on certain facts which could have been verified from record, but it is surprising to note that when the record was not available, the Enquiry Officer was not justified in giving his findings which culminated in the imposition of penalty of "reduction to lower stage in time scale by five steps". Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 4.7.2000 and direct the respondents to hold fresh enquiry, after making all the relevant record available and after giving full chance to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and to put up his defence within three months of this judgment. The consequential benefits would depend on the report of the enquiry which be conducted and concluded within the stipulated period, In case the same is not concluded within the stipulated period, the appellant would be entitled to all consequential benefits.
6. With the above observation, appeal stands allowed with on orders as to costs.
7. Parties be informed accordingly. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.