2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RASHID ALI MIRZA (MEMBER).

This appeal is directed against the order, dated 20-6-2002 whereby the appellant was removed from service by respondent No.2 on the charges contained in the Statement of allegations which reads as under:-- No.E-1013/5/100 May 16, 2002 (1) Whereas you Mr. Asadullah, JCA(B) Karachi Cantt. are charged with misconduct, inefficiency and corruption' for the following charges and other relevant circumstances:-- (a) On 31-10-1994, during the course of ticket checking it was noticed that you issued Tickets Nos.191133, 34, 36, 37, 38, 191141, 182667, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 182665 and 66, on which fare was mutilated by affixing dating stamp for the purpose of overcharging. (b) During the course of comparison of collected passenger foil with relevant account foil of BPT No.-028605 dated 14-6-1994 Ex.HDR to MUL, it was noticed that you prepared the account foil for Rs.6,5 whereas passenger foil was prepared for Rs.95. In this way you pocketed Rs.30 by committing embezzlement and misappropriation of Government money. (c) You were found involved in short remittance of cash 20 times, thus, you violated Rule 5.7 Chapter V of Commercial Manual. (d) You have also been awarded the following punishments:-- WIT two years on 8-11-1992 WIT two years on 13-3-1993 WIT one year on 2-5-1994. WIT two years on 30-11-1994. The appellant submitted his reply to the above charges vide reply dated 24-5-2002 stating therein that whole period from 1992 to 1994 relates to eight to ten-years for which he has already been penalized and suffered a heavy financial loss. He submitted that once the punishment either minor or major awarded cannot be discussed after a long period of ton years without the approval of President of Pakistan S.I. No.126 Item No.6 of ESTACODE. He submitted therein that his hands are clean and he has never been involved in any subversive mutilated fare, he submitted that it is not within his knowledge as to how and when said offence was committed by him being very old which perhaps relates to KC/KYC Station where he might be dealing the current counter where the Booking Clerks have to deal and face 700 to 1000 passengers in day and evening shifts and he might have affixed wrong dating stamp in hurry just to avoid heavy rush on window for which the Booking Clerk could not be blamed. As regards allegation for embezzlement and "misappropriation of Rs.30 in Government cash in issuing BPT No.028605 dated 14-6-1994 Ex to HDR to MUL, he submitted that it is not within his knowledge, as per his memory it is a very old. As regards allegation of short remittance of cash 20 times and violating Rule 5.7 Chapter-V of Commercial Manual, he submitted that no detail of allegation has been provided to him. He submitted that he never committed such offence. He submitted that the same could be easily proved through station record where some prominent personnel's are working, who being habitual .might have committed such offence. He submitted that previous punishments have been shown against him in the show-cause notice and his reputation is fair and there is no adverse record of his service.

2. Respondents were served. They filed the parawise comments stating therein that the past record of the appellant found that he was awarded punishments on number of occasions for over charging and was also involved in short remittance 20 times by violating rule 5.7. The appellant had ceased to be efficient and his working was not satisfactory. The appellant has not provided any solid proof against the charges levelled against him. As such the competent authority after careful examining his defence imposed upon major penalty of removal from service. The respondents further stated that the appellant was taken up under Ordinance, 2000 and there is no need of holding enquiry under section 5(4) of the said Ordinance.

3. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

4. We find that a petty offence of charging excess amount of Rs.30 from certain passengers for which the appellant was not even punished has now been used after 8 years to prove the charge of corruption against him. This has seriously disturbed us for the reason that if the appellant had committed any. offence as alleged why the departmental authorities had slept over it and had not taken any action against the appellant at that time and, what prevented them to use such an old incident to prove the charge against the appellant which has no basis as no incident or event, if any, had taken place after the promulgation of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as has been cited in the charge-sheet. The entire proceedings against the appellant are beyond our apprehension as to why the Railway Department had to revive the past and closed events to dismiss its employee without resorting to proper procedure as provided under the Ordinance and failed to .hold any' enquiry even in a case of major penalty. We are, therefore, not willing to condone the illegal acts of the respondents. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 20-6-2002 and reinstate the appellant in service from the date of his dismissal with all back-benefits minus whatever he earned during gainful employment, if any, in the intervening period. For that purpose he shall file his affidavit before the respondent authority.

5. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties and to the relevant quarters under registered cover under rule 21 of Service Tribunal. H.B.T./126/FST Appeal allowed.