1995 PLP 1042 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑R.5‑‑‑Civil servant‑‑‑Charge of theft‑‑‑Regular inquiry not conducted before reverting civil servant‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Where allegation against civil servant was of theft and on that ground penalty of reduction in rank was awarded, it was necessary to hold regular inquiry for purpose of recording ‑evidence in proof of such allegation‑‑Order in question, whereby civil servant was reverted was set aside and he was restored to the post he was holding before penalty was imposed upon him with direction to hold regular inquiry against civil servant in accordance with law. Appellant in person. M. Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 1994. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.‑‑‑This appeal, with leave of the Court, calls in question judgment, dated 21st February, 1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby appeal of appellant against his reversion is dismissed.

2. Appellant was employed in the Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs (Law Division), Government of Pakistan, as peon Qasid (Grade‑1). He was offered the post of staff‑car Driver in the Parliamentary Affairs Division in Grade IV vide letter of appointment, dated 9th February, 1980. It is mentioned in that letter that appointment is ad hoc in nature, and is liable to termination on notice of 14 days or salary in lieu thereof. It is further mentioned in the said letter that appointment will not confer on appellant claim for or title to permanent retention in that Division.

3. Vide notice dated 30th May, 1992, appellant was called upon to show cause why one of the. major penalties may not be imposed on him on the ground of misconduct as he had damaged new tyres or replaced them old ones after running of only 13,000 kilometres. Appellant was also called upon to state whether he desired to be heard in person.

4. Appellant replied this notice, in writing and claimed that staff car was driven by several other drivers and he had complained about defect in‑ wheel alignment which had caused damage to the tyres. Allegation of negligence or misconduct was denied. Vide Office Order No. 64 of 1992 explanation to appellant was rejected as unsatisfactory, and he was reverted to the post of Naib‑Qasid the Law and Justice Division. Appellant did not succeed in his departmental appeal and filed service appeal before Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed as stated above.

5. Service Tribunal has held that appellant is either guilty of gross negligence or had replaced new tyres with old tyres with mala fide' intention; hence impugned order was justified. It was further observed that the Department had been lenient to the appellant who was only reverted. There is no dispute about the fact that regular inquiry was not held on the charge of misconduct particularly when there was allegation of theft. Appellant stated before us that no inquiry was held and he was not given hearing. If there was charge against him of theft, the same should have been proved and evidence in that regard should have been recorded with opportunity to him of cross -examination of witnessed. Departmental representative who was present in Court, on our inquiry informed that in the record there was no order, in writing, that authorized officer decided that it was not necessary to have regular inquiry, and further appellant was not informed in writing, that for what reasons regular inquiry could not be held in his case. We are of the view that in the circumstances when allegation was of theft of new tyres and their replacement with old tyres and on that ground penalty of reduction is awarded, it was necessary to hold regular inquiry for the purpose of recording evidence in proof of allegation.

6. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and direct that employment of appellant in the Parliamentary Affairs Division as Driver be restored and regular inquiry be held against him in accordance with law. A.A./M‑2200/S Appeal accepted.