2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AKBAR M. MEMON (MEMBER). ‑‑‑Appellant hereinabove has challenged the order dated 4‑7‑2000, whereby he was imposed penalty of "reduction to lower stage in time scale by five steps". The order in question is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "SUBJECT: DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST MR. BEHROLAL VIRJANI DIVISONAL ENGINEER DIRECTOR STR‑II, KARACHI. Mr. Behrolal Virjani, Divisional Engineer Director STR‑II, Karachi was served with a charge‑sheet vide this office letter of even number dated 30‑12‑1999, under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (as adopted by the PTCL).

2. The "Authority" after having gone through the report of the inquiry Officer, defence reply of the accused and other facts and circumstances of the case, has imposed penalty of "Reduction to lower stage in time scale by five steps" upon Mr. Behrolal Virjani, Divisional Engineer Director STR‑II, Karachi. (Sd.) (AZIZ‑UR‑REHMAN BABAR) DIRECTOR (STAFF‑I)"

2. Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghori, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the present appellant had entered the service of erstwhile Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department now PTCL as Assistant Engineer (BPS‑17) on 21‑11‑1989. Throughout his career, his record remained unblemished and he used to perform his duties with honesty and diligence. While the appellant had done his duties with honesty and diligence. While the appellant was working as Divisional Engineer Phones, Gulistan‑e‑Jauhar Division, he was directed to report to General Manager ‑STR‑II to work as DE (Director STR‑II, Karachi) where he was charge‑sheeted on 30‑12‑1999 which was replied. He has contended that the Enquiry Officer then conducted the enquiry where charges Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were not proved and show‑cause notice was issued which culminated in imposition of penalty as mentioned above. He has further contended that complete record was not shown in the enquiry which is evident from pages Nos.73 and 77 of the enquiry proceedings. He has also contended that on account of non‑availability of record, the enquiry was conducted which shows that the every enquiry was not conducted judicially and the conclusion so arrived at in absence of adequate material is based on conjectures and surmises. In the circumstances, he has contended that the impugned punishment dated 4‑7‑2000 be set aside with all consequential benefits.

3. Mr. Umer Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner on which appellant has rightly been punished. He has, however, admitted that proper record was not available, but the appellant during the course of the enquiry ought to have made such protest and since it was not done, therefore, it cannot be said that the record was inadequate arid the punishment was imposed on findings which are based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Before we proceed further, we want to make it clear that the impugned order dated 4‑7‑2000, whereby appellant was imposed penalty of "reduction to lower state in time scale by five steps" is based on the enquiry which was conducted by. Enquiry Officer Mr. Siddique Ali Bhutto, Divisional Engineer Phones, Nazimabad No.3 (EXTL) Division STR‑III, Karachi. Question No.4 appear at page No.75 of the enquiry proceedings is pertinent, which is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "

4. What do you know about the missingness of very important record relating to this inquiry?" Its reply is available on page 77 which is also reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "

4. The all type of record never remains in custody of me. The missingness of record relating to my Inquiry came in my knowledge when I started to answer the queries raised by SMT. The Head Clerk and NTC Clerk and Record Keeper are responsible for the missingness of important record." From the above question and answer it appears that there was no record and the entire enquiry in respect of charges Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 are based on certain facts which could. have been verified from record, but it is surprising to note that when the record was not available, the Enquiry Officer was not justified in giving his findings which culminated in the imposition of penalty of "reduction to lower stage in time scale by five steps". Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dates 4‑7‑2000 and direct the respondents to hold fresh enquiry, after making all the relevant record available and after giving full chance to the appellant to cross‑examine the witnesses and to put up his defence within three months of this judgment. The consequential benefits would depend on the report of the enquiry which be conducted and concluded within the stipulated period. In case the same is not concluded within the stipulated period, the appellant would be entitled to all consequential benefits. 6.With the above observation, appeal stands allowed, with no orders as to costs.

7. Parties be informed accordingly. H.B.T./254/FST Appeal allowed.