RASHID ALI MIRZA, MEMBER.- The appellant had been serving respondents Inspector-General Pakistan Railways Police for the last 14 years, lastly as Sub- Inspector at Railway Loco Shed, Karachi Cantt. Under respondent No. 3. He was served with show-cause notice dated 24.5.2001 that theft of the diesel oil was committed by the appellant's active connivance, earned average ACRs, do not enjoy good reputation corrupt, breach of discipline and for having ceased to be an efficient employee.
2. The appellant replied the show-cause notice thereafter he was dismissed from service vide order, dated 29.9.2001 passed by the respondent No. 2. He filed departmental appeal on 13.10.2001.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of his dismissal from service, the appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal under Section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 praying therein to set aside the dismissal order passed by respondent No. 2 and to reinstate him with full back-benefits or in the alternative remand back the case to the department while setting aside the abovesaid punishment for de novo departmental action as per rules.
4. The respondents filed their written comments. They have denied all the contents of memo, of appeal and stated that the appellant was not involved in theft of Railway speed oil.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the past record of service of the appellant reveals that there is no major or minor punishment in the service career or adverse ACRs communicated to the appellant and about 12/13 commendation certificates are at the credit of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that on 17.5.2001 a raid was conducted by the Army Vigilance Cell alongwith officers of Police at Diesel Depot Pakistan Railways Karachi Cantt. AS1 Muhammad Ashraf and Constable Azmat Ali were hauled up while they were abetting the stealing' of diesel oil from an oil Tanker through rubber pie and one electric motor was also recovered, and a case vide F. I.R. No. 26/2001 u/S. 409/109/34, PPC read with Section 5(1) of PCA was registered at RPs Karachi Cantt. He has further contended that at the time of raid the appellant was not available and had gone to attend the Court of C.J. Arid FCM Jacobabad. The learned counsel further contended that the inquiry was dispensed with u/S. 5(4) of the Removal from Service Ordinance, 2001 by the respondent No. 2 simple statement of allegation had not been enough to justify to dispense with thd procedure of enquiry when the appellant denied the charges, In such situation the onus had been lying upon the authority and board to prove the charges, In absence of concrete documentary evidence that the enquiry was not deemed necessary is not acceptable when further the employee is involved. Reliance is placed on the rulings cited as 1984 PLC (CS) 610, 1429, PLD 1986 SC 162, PLC (CS) 408, PLD 1996 SC 207, 1996 PLC (CS) 1539 and 868, 1993 PLC (CS) 100 and 1989 PLC (CS) 7671. He further contended that major punishment cannot be imposed till regular inquiry is conducted and reliance is placed on the ruling cited as 1997 PLC (CS) 873, 1993 SCMR 683, 1440, 1996 PLC (CS) 668 and PLD 1994 SC 22, 1985 PLC (CS) 219 and 245, 1990 PLC (CS)
745. He has further contended that adverse ACRs if not communicated lost sanctity and average ACRs are always graded as Good ACRs. Reliance is placed on the rulings cited as PLD 1962 SC 144, 1994 SCMR 544, 1995 PLC (CS) 39, 1997 TD (Service) 93, NLR 1996 TD (S) 46, 1995 T.D. (Service) 30 and PLD 1992 SC '144.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents in his arguments reiterated the contentions of the respondents that the proceedings against the appellant were taken in accordance with the law on the basis of show-cause notice issued to him. He, however, admitted that no regular inquiry was held against the appellant.
8. The above facts clearly indicate that the proceedings . Against the appellant have not been conducted in accordance with the rules and he has also been denied the reasonable opportunity of defending the allegations. The position that emerges out from the above arguments of the counsel for the parties that no regular inquiry was held into the allegations levelled against the appellant which were the allegations of fact needing to be proved by means of recording evidence but that was not done which is patent illegality in view of numerous pronouncements of the apex Court. Reference may be made to PLD 1994 SC 222 PLJ 1997 SC 1393, 2000 PLC (CS) 270, 2000 SCMR 1324, 2002 PLC (CS) 1078 and 2002 PLC (CS) 1106. We find that the principles of natural justice have also been violated, as such we set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service. However, we direct the respondents to conduct de novo proceedings against the appellant in accordance with rules within four months and by affording full opportunity to the appellant to contest any allegations as alleged against him. The question of back benefits shall be decided on the outcome of the de novo proceedings against the appellant.
9. No order as to costs. Parties be informed accordingly.