2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"(1) Awarded 8 different punishments:

(i) Censured in 1981 for absence, (ii) 3 days E.D. for absence 1988, (iii) 5 censured in 1992 twicely, 1997 and 1998 twicely, for absence, (iv) WIT/1 year in 1998 for absence. (2) Reported highly corrupt takes bribe and enjoys bad reputation. (3) That you do not enjoy a good reputation and as such you may reasonably be considered as corrupt." The Appellant replied the show-cause notice denying the allegations against him. The reply was not found satisfactory and after personally hearing the Appellant, the Respondent No.2 removed him from service vide impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the authorities, cited at the bar.

4. The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant had been punished under Removal from Service (Special powers) Ordinance, 2000, but the Respondents having taken the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant strictly in accordance with law. He further pointed out that no statement of allegations was supplied to the Appellant; that there was no complaint against the Appellant and no other documentary evidence was supplied to the Appellant. The learned counsel stated that the allegations were vague and of general nature and these allegations were serious in nature and required to be proved by means of evidence, but no inquiry whatsoever was held. The learned counsel argued that where serious allegations of fact had been denied by the accused official, regular inquiry was necessary and imposing of major penalty without such inquiry was absolutely illegal, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases. The learned counsel cited 1997 (CS) 873, 1993 SCMR 683 and 1440, 1996 PLC (C.S) 868, PLD 1994 SC 22, .1985 PLC (C.S.) 219 and 245 and 1990 PLC (C.S.) 745 and 1997 SCMR 1543. The learned counsel further stated that under Railway Rules the minor penalties imposed on the Appellant already stood waived off and the Appellant having already undergone the minor punishments could not be subjected to "double jeopardy". Reliance was placed on 1995 PLC (C.S.) 547, 1989 SCMR 1224 and PLD 1973 SC 188.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents was that the Railway Police employees were not governed by the Railways Rules, but they were governed by Railways Police Act and the Rules 1980. He contended that the minor penalty to the Railways Police employees would not be waived off just like the minor punishments awarded to the Railway employees.

6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that Railways Rules also applied to the Railway Police employees. He referred us to rule-18(2) of the Railway Police Act 1977 and the Rules 1980 wherein, as pointed out by him, it has been provided that the terms and conditions of service of the officers, members and ministerial staff shall, in respect of the matters not provided in these rules be the same as are applicable to the employees of the Pakistan Railways".

7. We then asked the learned counsel for the Respondents whether the punishment to the Appellant, who had already undergone minor punishments, would now be justified in spite of the fact that there was no fresh cause of action for proceedings against the Appellants. The learned counsel for the Respondents was unable to make any satisfactory reply.

8. In view of what has been said above, we are of the firm opinion that major penalty of removal from service imposed upon the Appellant, without holding a regular inquiry on the alleged acts of misconduct, was not justified. We, accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Appellant in service to the post he was removed from service with all back-benefits for the period he was not gainfully employed elsewhere for which he shall file an affidavit before the Competent Authority. However, it will be open to the Respondents to hold a "de novo" inquiry against the Appellant strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four months. No order as to costs. 8A. This judgment shall mutatis mutandis apply to the identical Appeal No.63(K)(CS)/2002 filed by Muhammad Ilyas Bullo.

9. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters. H.B.T./138/FST Appeal accepted.