PLJ 2004 Tr.C. (Services) 124 [Federal
Service Tribunal, Lah.ore]
Present: moazzam hayat and jehan zaib burki, members.
JAVED
IQBAL--Appellant
versus
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, CHUNIAN DIVISION, LAHORE ELECTRIC ' SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, CHUNIAN, DISTRICT
KASUR and 3 others-Respondents
Appeal No. 145CL) (C.S.) of 2000, decided on 2.10.2003.
Service Matter--
—Hearing on telephone--Misconduct-Not properly
appreciated-Appellant
was meter reader-Appellant intentionally dropped names of culprits of
theft electricity-Misconducted by deleting wrong names and entering of
innocent names-Appellant wasted time of Police and had given a bad
impression to department-Removed from service-Departmental appeal
was rejected-Assailed-Competent authority committed an illegality by
hearing on telephone-Hearing on telephone can never be called a valid
mode of personal hearing-Appellant should have been allowed to appear
in person before competent authority to present case-Defence plea taken
by appellant was not properly appreciated-Penalty imposed cannot be
sustained-Appeal allowed. [P. 126] A, B & C
was meter reader-Appellant intentionally dropped names of culprits of
theft electricity-Misconducted by deleting wrong names and entering of
innocent names-Appellant wasted time of Police and had given a bad
impression to department-Removed from service-Departmental appeal
was rejected-Assailed-Competent authority committed an illegality by
hearing on telephone-Hearing on telephone can never be called a valid
mode of personal hearing-Appellant should have been allowed to appear
in person before competent authority to present case-Defence plea taken
by appellant was not properly appreciated-Penalty imposed cannot be
sustained-Appeal allowed. [P. 126] A, B & C
Dr. Ehsanul Haq, Counsel for Appellant.
Mian Muhammad Javed, Counsel for Respondents with Mr. Muhammad Safdar, LDC, Chunian
Sub-Division/WAPDA.
Date of hearing: 2.10.2003.
judgment
Moazzam Hayat, Member.-Appellant Javed
Iqbal was a Meter
Reader in the service of the respondents. On 20.10.1999 he accompanied
SDO Kanganpur for general checking. 7 Persons in village Fateh
Muhammad Khurd were caught stealing electricity by direct hooking. These
7 persons were Muhammad Mansha s/o Muhammad Siddiq, Khairuddin s/o
Jamal Din, Ali Muhammad s/o Akbar, Qadir Bux s/o Abdul Aziz, Farzancf
s/o Noor Hussain, Nusrat s/o Wali Muhammad and Abdul Hameed s/o
Shafi Muhammad. According to charge sheet dated 26.10.1999 the appellant
intentionally dropped the names of Nusrat s/o Wali Muhammad and Abdul
Hameed s/o Shaft Muhammad from the list of the culprits who were stealing
electricity and inserted the names of Molvi Muhammad Tufail s/o
Muhammad Shafi and Zafar s/o Haji Qasim. It was alleged in the charge
sheet that by his this action the appellant had cheated his senior officer and
had also given mental torture to Molvi Muhammad Tufail and Zafar. The
matter of theft of electricity had been reported to the police also. A reference
was made in the charge sheet that the appellant had wasted the time of the
police department and had given a bad name to the department. The
departmental proceedings culminated into appellant's removal from service
vide order dated 17.11.1999 against which his departmental appeal dated
1.12.1999 was rejected on 15.1.2000. It is prayed by the appellant that the
impugned order be set aside and he be reinstated into service.
Reader in the service of the respondents. On 20.10.1999 he accompanied
SDO Kanganpur for general checking. 7 Persons in village Fateh
Muhammad Khurd were caught stealing electricity by direct hooking. These
7 persons were Muhammad Mansha s/o Muhammad Siddiq, Khairuddin s/o
Jamal Din, Ali Muhammad s/o Akbar, Qadir Bux s/o Abdul Aziz, Farzancf
s/o Noor Hussain, Nusrat s/o Wali Muhammad and Abdul Hameed s/o
Shafi Muhammad. According to charge sheet dated 26.10.1999 the appellant
intentionally dropped the names of Nusrat s/o Wali Muhammad and Abdul
Hameed s/o Shaft Muhammad from the list of the culprits who were stealing
electricity and inserted the names of Molvi Muhammad Tufail s/o
Muhammad Shafi and Zafar s/o Haji Qasim. It was alleged in the charge
sheet that by his this action the appellant had cheated his senior officer and
had also given mental torture to Molvi Muhammad Tufail and Zafar. The
matter of theft of electricity had been reported to the police also. A reference
was made in the charge sheet that the appellant had wasted the time of the
police department and had given a bad name to the department. The
departmental proceedings culminated into appellant's removal from service
vide order dated 17.11.1999 against which his departmental appeal dated
1.12.1999 was rejected on 15.1.2000. It is prayed by the appellant that the
impugned order be set aside and he be reinstated into service.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is submitted that the appellant had intentionally
committed misconduct by deleting the names of wrong
doers and entering the names of innocence persons in the list on the basis of which criminal case of theft of
electricity had been registered.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the record.
perused the record.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the
appellant had not been granted personal hearing by the Competent
Authority. In the written objections it is stated by the respondents that
personal hearing was granted to the appellant "by telephonic call for
17.11.1999". We have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant had not been granted personal hearing by the Competent
Authority. In the written objections it is stated by the respondents that
personal hearing was granted to the appellant "by telephonic call for
17.11.1999". We have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the
respondents and hold that the Competent Authority
committed an illegality by hearing the appellant on telephone. A hearing on telephone can
never be called a valid mode of personal
hearing. The appellant should have been allowed to appear in person before the Competent Authority to present his
case.
5. The appellant has maintained that the SDO had gone
for
checking not only on 20th but on 23rd of October also and on that date
Nusrat and Abdul Hameed were found stealing electricity but no action was
taken against them. This statement of the appellant should have been
considered by the Competent Authority. It was not done for the apparent
reason that the appellant was not allowed to appear in person before the
Competent Authority. The defence plea taken by the appellant was thus not
properly appreciated. The penalty imposed upon him cannot be sustained in
the circumstances.
checking not only on 20th but on 23rd of October also and on that date
Nusrat and Abdul Hameed were found stealing electricity but no action was
taken against them. This statement of the appellant should have been
considered by the Competent Authority. It was not done for the apparent
reason that the appellant was not allowed to appear in person before the
Competent Authority. The defence plea taken by the appellant was thus not
properly appreciated. The penalty imposed upon him cannot be sustained in
the circumstances.
6. For
the above reasons we accept the appeal and set aside the
impugned order. The Competent Authority shall give an opportunity of
personal hearing to the appellant and then decide the matter afresh on
merits. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a- period of three
months from the date a copy of this order is received in the office of the
respondents.
impugned order. The Competent Authority shall give an opportunity of
personal hearing to the appellant and then decide the matter afresh on
merits. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a- period of three
months from the date a copy of this order is received in the office of the
respondents.
7. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Parties be informed.
(M.A.) Appeal accepted.
(M.A.) Appeal accepted.
