2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus GENERAL MANAGER/OPERATIONS PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui and Rashid Ali Mirza, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus GENERAL MANAGER/OPERATIONS PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui and Rashid Ali Mirza, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus GENERAL MANAGER/OPERATIONS PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sanaullah Noor Ghauri for Appellant.
- Ch. Rashid Ahmed for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.3, 5 & 6
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4
Appellant was charged with misconduct for receiving bribe from a person for giving him undue facilities in performing his legitimate official duties
Major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon appellant on said charge without holding any inquiry into allegation against him
Vigilance Team had not been produced by the Authorities and there was no complaint against appellant for receiving bribe
Photocopy of affidavit of person from whom appellant allegedly had received bribe, had shown that Vigilance Team had forcibly got recorded statement of appellant against co-workers and his colleagues in a false and fabricated case of bribe
Authorities had not rebutted said affidavit
No evidence was on record in support of charges against appellant
Effect
In a case of major penalty where serious allegations were made and same were denied by accused/employee, a regular inquiry into the allegations, was absolutely necessary and a final notice had also to be issued and accused/employee had to be given a chance of personal hearing
Such having not been done in case of the appellant, penalty of removal from service could not be imposed
Impugned order of removal from service, without holding regular inquiry, without issuing final show-cause notice and also without giving appellant an opportunity of hearing, could not be maintained
Impugned order was set aside, appellant was directed to be reinstated in service from date of his removal from service
Authorities were further directed to hold regular inquiry against appellant strictly, in accordance with law providing him full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, after issuing show-cause notice and also personally hearing him
Back benefits would depend upon the result of inquiry which would be held within specified period. 1996 PLC (C.S.) 1; 1981 PLC (C.S.) 125 and 1997 SCMR 1543 ref.
Judgment & Decree
3. Along with the statement of charge, a show-cause notice of even date i.e. 5-3-2002 was also served upon the appellant for imposing of major penalty of dismissal as specified in section 3 of the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
4. The reply to the show-cause notice/reply of charges was, perhaps, not found by the respondents as satisfactory, therefore, without holding any inquiry into the, allegations against the appellant and dispensing with the inquiry, as already stated in the show-cause notice, a major penalty or removal from service was imposed upon the appellant vide Notification No.1-W/Vigilance Cell of 2001 dated 23-4-2002, reproduced as under:-- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KARACHI March 12 of 2002 23-4-2002 NOTIFICATION No.1-W/Vigilance Cell/2001
Whereas Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Works Mistry, KC were charged for misconduct, inefficiency and corruption vide show-cause notice bearing even number dated 5-3-2002 under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000.
2. And whereas after considering the defence of the accused employee to the show-cause notice and, other relevant circumstances the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi, found the official inter alia guilty of the charges mentioned in the above show-cause notice.
3. Whereas the official has been found guilty of the charges therefore, Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi, has imposed the major penalty of Removal from Service with immediate effect under the said Ordinance upon Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Works Mistry. K.C.
4. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Works Mistry, KC, shall have a right for representation and review to the General Manager/Ops: Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order under rule-9 of the said Ordinance. (SD) (AMIR MUHAMMAD DAUDPOTA) DEN-1 FOR DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI Hence this appeal.
5. In the written comments, almost nothing has been said on behalf of the respondents except that his appeal was rejected by the General Manager (Operation) on 28-9-2002.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. We have also perused the authorities cited at the bar.
7. In this case, the report of the Vigilance Team has not been produced by the respondents and there is also no complaint from Afzal Valveman on record. On the contrary, a photocopy of an affidavit of said Afzal Valveman has been filed by the appellant which shows that the Vigilance Team had forcibly got recorded his statement against his co-workers and colleagues namely M/s. Mate Muhammad Tariq, Abbas Fitter and M. Afzal Works Mistry in a fake and fabricated case of bribery. The respondents have not rebutted this affidavit. Thus, there is no evidence on record in support of the charges against the appellant. On C the other hand, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1996 PLC (C.S.) 1, 1981 PLC (C.S) 125 and 1997 SCMR 1543 in case of major penalty where there are serious allegations and the same are denied by the accused, a regular inquiry into the allegations is absolutely necessary. Further that in case of major penalty a final show-cause notice has also to be issued and the accused has to be given a chance of personal hearing. That having not been done, the learned counsel for the respondents found it difficult to support the imposition of major penalty upon the appellant without any inquiry.
8. Since major penalty has been imposed upon the appellant without holding regular inquiry, issuing final show-cause notice and giving the appellant an opportunity of personal bearing the impugned order cannot be sustained. We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of removal of the appellant from service and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service from the date of his removal from service. We further direct the respondents to hold regular inquiry against the appellant strictly in accordance with law providing him full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, after issuing him final show-cause notice as also personally hearing the appellant, pass appropriate order in the case. The back benefits will depend upon the result of the inquiry, which shall be held and completed within a period of four months. No order as to costs.
9. The case stands remanded accordingly. Copies of the Judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters. H.B.T./155/FST Case remanded.