2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NAZAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH (MEMBER).

Appellant has filed this appeal to contest respondent's impugned order, dated 26-1-2001 whereby he has been dismissed from service. Appellant's departmental appeal dated 17-2-2001 has been rejected by the respondents vide order, dated 16-6-2001.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out following infirmities in the proceedings:-- "(a) That the fact-finding inquiry was conducted prior to the issuance of charge-sheet and he has been awarded major punishment on the basis of that report which is not tenable in the light of the ruling reported in 2001 SCMR 256. (b) That F.I.R. No.50 of 1999 had been filed by the respondents and after investigation the police department has arrived at a conclusion intimated vide their letter dated 28-10-2000 that the appellant was not directly involved and that the should be reinstated in service. (c) That regular mandatory inquiry was also not held in this case. He placed reliance on the ruling reported in 2004 SCMR 316=2004 PLC (C.S.) 344. (d) That no personal hearing was afforded, which was necessary. He placed reliance on the rulings reported in 1986 PLC (C.S.) 419, 2003 PLC (C.S.) 365 and PLD 2004 SC

441. He also further argued that identical cases have been remanded in view of the findings of this Tribunal and, as such, this appeal may also be remanded back to the respondents for de novo proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents did not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the findings of the fact-finding inquiry held the appellant guilty. He also stated that perusal of the fact finding inquiry clearly indicates that the appellant participated in the said inquiry and admitted his knowledge that Mr. Nasiruddin was short remitting the cash. He further argued that huge Government revenue amounting to Rs.1.621 million has been embezzled for which the appellant was responsible due to his connivance.

4. We have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the record and the citations.

5. Besides the legal infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, we also find that the show-cause notice has not been issued which is a major legal shortcoming in the proceedings against him. Appellant had also denied the allegations and it was thus, incumbent upon the respondents to hold inquiry, which has not been done. We feel that the appellant has not been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend the allegations against him.

6. In view of the above, we remand the case back to the respondents to hold de novo inquiry which should be completed within a period of four months. Meanwhile the impugned order is set aside and appellant is reinstated in service. The question of back-benefits would follow the result of the de novo proceedings against the appellant. No order as to costs.

7. Announced in open Court. H.B.T./137/FST Appeal accepted accordingly.