2007 PLC (C (PLP)

QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.

While serving as Office Assistant in the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Hyderabad Zone, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 13-11-2001 under Regulation No.30(1)(g)(iv) of the State Life Employees Service Regulations, 1973. On 28-11-2001, he preferred a departmental appeal to the General Manager, State Life Insurance Corporation, which was not responded to within the statutory period; hence, he filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 before this Tribunal on 21-3-2002, praying to set aside the impugned orders and to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

2. As per charge-sheet dated 19-9-2001 and the statement of allegations, the charges against the appellant were as under:- "(i) Committed breach of discipline, Rules and Regulations

Regulation No.30(1)(a)(b). (ii) Committed or assisted to committing the acts of misappropriation or embezzlement of fund which belonging to Corporation - Regulation No.30(1)(d). (iii) Knowingly doing anything detriment to the interest of the Corporation- Regulation No.30(1)(e). (iv) Tampering with records -Regulation No.30(2)(xii). (v) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Corporation's property - Regulation No.30(2)(ii) and (viii)."

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

4. The initial objection of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the charge-sheet, issued against the appellant by the Manager, was not issued by a competent authority which was illegal and no proceedings against the appellant could be taken on such charge-sheet. The learned counsel further stated that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of cross-examining any witness as no witness was examined in support of the allegations against the appellant; that on the other hand, the appellant was examined in the so-called inquiry in the form of question and answer and in that too he had not admitted the allegations against him. The learned counsel further invited our attention to an affidavit by one Muhammad Imran, who was alleged to have been in league or was an accomplice with the appellant. He pointed out that as per the said affidavit the appellant had no hand in the entire episode. It was also stated that the copy of inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant, he was not personally heard and no final show-cause notice was issued to him before imposing the penalty of dismissal from service.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant had himself undertaken along with two other persons viz. Mubarak Ali Khan and Imran Siddiqui to make repayment of the entire amount pertaining to the policies in question and they did so. Further that in the said undertaking they have admitted to have opened the fake accounts for getting the amount of the policy encashed.

6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was not confronted with the said undertaking during the question-answer examination of the appellant by the respondents. He also stated that the said undertaking purported to have been signed by the appellant did not actually bear his signature.

7. We have carefully considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the serious allegations, levelled against the appellant had since been denied by him, as mentioned above, holding of a regular inquiry giving full chance to cross-examine the witnesses, was absolutely necessary in the case as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1275, 1997 SCMR 1552 and PLD 1994 SC

222. The respondents had since not held the inquiry in accordance with law, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the respondents to hold de novo disciplinary proceedings against the appellant strictly in accordance with law. The appellant will, in the mean time, be reinstated to his post. The inquiry shall be completed within a period of four months from date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment. Back benefits would depend upon the result of the inquiry. No order as to costs.

8. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters. H.B.T./10/FST Order accordingly.