2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI (MEMBER).

Advocates for the parties are present. Heard them and perused the record of the appeal.

2. The appellant had been serving as Deputy Manager, R. M. H. D. (Raw Material Handling Department) of Steel Mills when he was issued statement of allegations and charges dated 20-11-2001 which is reproduced as under: "PAKISTAN STEEL (Central Maintenance Department) No.CMD/Admn./(Enq-6245)/2001/642 dated 20th November, 2001 Mr. Basharat Hussain, Deputy Manager (P.No.038504), R. M .H. D., Pakistan Steel. Statement of allegations and charges As per order, dated 16th November, 2001 passed by the competent authority under section 2 (Advocate for the appellant) read with sections 3 and 5 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as amended, the undersigned has been appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the following allegations and charges levelled against you. As a result of investigation into your promotion it has transpired that you used extra official means in securing ante-dated seniority and subsequent promotion to the grade of Deputy Manager w.e.f. 2-1-1989 in violation of relevant rules. (2) The above allegations/charges prima facie reflects conduct prejudicial to good service discipline and securing promotion on extraneous grounds in violation of law and relevant rules on your part rendering yourself liable to disciplinary action under section 3(1)(b) and (e) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as amended. (3) Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred under section 5(1)(a) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as amended, the undersigned hereby calls upon you to put in a written defence i.e. to explain your position in regard to the above allegations and charges in writing within seven days of the receipt of this communication. (4) On receipt of your explanation, you will be informed about the date, time and place of the enquiry. 'In case your explanation does not reach the undersigned within the period of seven days it will be assumed that you are not interested in putting written defence and the undersigned will proceed with the enquiry, of which date, place time will be duly intimated to you. (Sd.) (Muhammad Iqbal) Enquiry Officer/Manager Admn. (C.M.D.)." The appellant had denied the above mentioned allegations. Consequently, a departmental inquiry was held against the appellant wherein the appellant was exonerated from the above mentioned allegations/charges. However, the competent authority did not accept the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and ordered for de novo departmental inquiry, as a result of which the appellant was held guilty of the charges vide inquiry report dated 28-6-2002. This was followed by show-cause notice and after personal hearing the appellant was demoted to the post of Assistant Manager on 11-7-2002.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of penalty of demotion dated 11-7-2002, the appellant filed departmental appeal on 22-7-2002 which was rejected on 30-7-2002, hence he filed this appeal on 23-8-2002.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had nothing to do with the movement of the files and he had no excess to the files; that the appellant had not made any interpolation in the record, nor he had tampered the record; that there was no such evidence against the appellant in both the inquiries; that even so the appellant along with I.J. Abbasi and S. Qamar Abbas was held guilty of the allegations/ charges. The learned counsel strongly argued that the appellant was subjected to worst kind of discrimination as no action whatsoever was taken against I.J. Abbasi and S. Qamar Abbas against whom identical charges were levelled in the inquiry report.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has frankly admitted that no action was taken against said two persons, namely, I.J. Abbasi and S. Qamar Abbas and for that no reason whatsoever has been assigned. This clearly' shows that the appellant was subjected to discrimination and he was the only person penalized without any cogent reasons. The impugned order of penalty of the appellant cannot be sustained on the ground of discrimination alone, hence we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of demotion of the appellant, dated 11-7-2002 and direct the respondents to restore the appellant to his original position of Deputy Manager with all consequential benefits. Announced in open Court on this 17th day of June, 2006.

6. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters under Rule 21 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974. H.B.T./53/FST Appeal allowed.