KARACHI, Aug 9: The Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, have been superseded by the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, and a government employee can no longer be removed from service under the rules , the Federal Service Tribunal held on Thursday.

Reinstating a customs official compulsorily retired in September 2003, an FST bench, comprising former justice Amanullah Abbasi and Nazar Mohammad Shaikh, however, allowed the customs department to hold another inquiry against him under the Removal from Service Ordinance, promulgated in May 2000, within four months. The question of back benefits would depend on the outcome of fresh proceedings.

Appellant Arshad Awan joined the customs department as examiner in grade 10 in 1982. He was subsequently promoted as appraising officer in grade 14. He was charge-sheeted in August 2000 for 'conniving' with importers in unauthorized clearance of a consignment of vaccines, medicines and medicaments on the basis of fake documents fraudulently describing it as goods belonging to the Edhi Foundation.

Other allegations included removal and 'disappearance' of a note-sheet containing authorization for payment of certain duties and taxes 'with his connivance' and failure to intercept a consignment of vaccines worth Rs 500,000 under a fake undertaking of Edhi Foundation.

An inquiry was conducted under the 1973 rules and the official was found guilty. He was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service. His representation against the penalty elicited no departmental response.

The official challenged his dismissal before the FST through Advocate Mohammad Nawaz Shaikh. He alleged that the inquiry was conducted behind his back and the allegations were based on mere 'presumptions'. The inquiry officer was serving in grade 20 while both the authorized officer and the competent authority were grade 19 officers.

The assertions were categorically denied by the customs counsel, Advocate S. Shahid Hussain, who said the proceedings were held strictly in accordance with the rules and the punishment was lawful, just and valid.

The tribunal observed that the appellant was duly charge- sheeted and a regular inquiry was held with 11 witnesses recording their statements and cross-examined by the accused. There was no lacuna in the proceedings and the accused was afforded full opportunity to defend himself.

However, the tribunal pointed out, "there was a serious legal infirmity in the proceedings." The rules under which the inquiry was held had already been superseded by an ordinance and were no longer available for the inquiry and the consequential punishment. The impugned order was, therefore, illegal and void and fresh proceedings should be initiated by the department under the ordinance within four months, it ruled.