' NAZAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH (MEMBER).---All these appeals contain identical facts and are, therefore, being disposed of by this single judgment. The appeal of Appellant Iqbal Ahmed Mangi is the lead appeal and is dealt hereunder.
2. Appellant has been aggrieved by Respondent No,3's Order No,E-19/I Pt.II dated 7-5-2001 whereby he has been imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement from service in term of section 3(1) of the Removal, from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance of 2000. Respondent No,2 has 'not relied to the Appellant's departmental appeal on 20-5-2001 obliging the Appellant to approach Federal Service Tribunal through this appeal under section 4 read with section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant had applied for the post of Ticket Collector in Grade-I in Pakistan Railways Division, Sukkur,, and was appointed after due process of written test and interview vide Respondent's order dated 28-2-1975. After Appellant's selection he was sent to training in Walton Training School, Lahore, for a period of one month in T-VII (B) Course and on completion of the training he was posted at different places in Sukkur Division. Appellant was then promoted to officiate as" S.T.E. (Special Ticket Examiner) w,e,f, 12-7-1988. Appellant was, however, issued a show-cause notice in March, 2001 under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules of 1973 but this was withdrawn on 24-3-2001 and another show-cause notice was issued on 31-3-2001 under section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 wherein he was charged with gross misconduct, inefficient working, fraudulently issued EFTs, corruption, enjoying bad reputation and also his previous records of punishment. Appellant replied to the show-cause notice on 11-4-2001 denying the allegations but was imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement from service vide Respondent's order dated 7-5-2001. Appellant filed departmental appeal on 20-5-2001 which has not been replied despite lapse of prescribed statutory period.
4. The learned counsel for the Appellant forcefully argued the appeal and stated that the proceedings against the Appellant suffer from serious infirmities which have rendered the impugned order as null and void. He stated that no formal, inquiry was conducted before imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from servite which is in negation of numerous rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Non-holding of inquiry has seriously impaired the Appellant's right of defence. He further pointed out that the show-cause notice dated 31-3-2001 was issued after withdrawing the earlier show-cause notice which was issued under E&D Rules of 1973 which is also not sustainable in law. The other objection which has been raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the allegation contained in the statement of allegation issued along with the show - cause notice are very vague and are not specific as required under law. He further pointed out that no dues are now outstanding against the Appellant and also has submitted a clearance certificate. Appellant also alleged discrimination and in this regard his counsel stated that there were 22 employees who were involved in the same charge out of which 4 persons have been totally exonerated and proceedings against 13 persons have been dropped. He further stated that the Respondents were bent upon depriving the Appellant of livelihood. He also pointed out that in view of vague allegations Appellant needs to be reinstated in service.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondents assailed the contentions of the Appellant and stated that the allegations were proved against the Appellant and, as such, there was no room for holding inquiry. He further pointed out that initially an amount of Rs,61445 was considered outstanding but then finally an amount of Rs,5211 was worked out which has since been recovered from the Appellant's salary and, as such, his guilt is established insofar as he has agreed to the recovery of charges. The learned counsel for the Respondents further stated that the Appellant has not filed any departmental appeal and the seal shown in the so-called departmental appeal is fake. He also pointed out that the Appellant has been strictly proceeded in accordance with rules and there is no deficiency.
' The learned counsel for the Respondents also further pointed out that Appellants in Appeals Nos.187 and 190 had accepted the termination dues without any protest and, as such, they are stopped from agitating this issue. In support of his contention, Respondents' counsel has cited the ruling of the Federal Service Tribunal in case of Ahmed Rabbani v. Railways reported in 1976 PLC (C.S.) 140.
7. The learned counsel for the Appellant in rebuttal once again stressed the point of discrimination and cited the case of Mr. Abdul Raoof who has been reinstated in service.
8.' The facts of the case clearly established that the Appellant was charged with the following allegations: "1. Fraudulently issued EFT's 'amounting to Rs,61,445.
2. Failed to deposit record foils of EFT books.
3. Awarded 14 different punishments as per services record.
4. Highly corrupt individual and takes bribe.
5. Enjoys bad reputation."
' The above allegations clearly indicate the bias of the Respondents against the Appellant. For instance on inquiry it transpired that the EFTs so-called issues worked to Rs,5211 as against the original amount of Rs,61,445 which makes it evident that the charge was faulty and it warranted inquiry. Appellant in order to protect his interest was, however, obliged to make good the loss. The charge No,2 is part of charge No,1 and, as such, it does not merit any comment. As regard charge No,3 which states that 14 different punishments have been already meted out to the Appellant.
Since the Appellant has been punished though an order of awarding such punishment has not been attached by the Respondents but since these punishments have been imposed for various lapses of the Appellant in the past these have now become closed and past transactions and cannot be reopened again as it would amount to double jeopardy and would be in conflict with Article 13 of 1973 Constitution. Charges Nos.4 and 5 are vague charges and have not been corroborated by any details or substantiated with any proof. We feel that out of five charges only one has some merit and that since the recovery of the amount has been made the Appellant cannot be punished again for the loss sustained by the Corporation as it has now been fully recovered.
9. As regards Respondent's contention that the two Appellants who filed Appeals Nos.187 and 190 and received the pensionary benefits unconditionally they are stopped. We do not subscribe to this line of arguments as these two Appellants are lowly paid employees with no other means of sustenance had no alternative but to accept the pensionary benefits.
10. We feel that the Appellant has been treated very harshly and, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under section 5(1) of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 we modify the impugned order and convert it into withholding of increments for a period of three years. No orders as to costs.
11. The above order shall apply mutatis mnutandis to the Appeals Nos.187, 188, 189 and 190. No orders as to cost. Parties be informed accordingly: