LAHORE, June 20: The Pakistan Railways administration continues to delay implementation of the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding reinstatement of its sacked employees.
Justices Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmad had on Sept 29, 2005, directed the railway authorities to conclude inquiry against Abdul Hameed Bhatti, the former chief booking clerk at the PR headquarters in Lahore, within four months.
An inquiry, conducted by the PR competent authority, exonerated Mr Bhatti of the charge but the chief personnel officer with the help of the director legal affairs are using delaying tactics to reinstate him in service.
Mr Bhatti was among the 13 employees who were found overcharging Rs20 to Rs50 from each passenger while posted at the PR headquarters reservation office in the last week of November 2004 by three officials of the army vigilance cell. They were issued show-cause notices and terminated from service.
A case was lodged against them with the PR police and they were sent up to face trial before the special judge (central) of Lahore. Mr Bhatti and his colleagues were chargesheeted on Nov 22, 2004, on the basis of their handwritten `confessional statements’ they gave to the army officials.
The special judge (central) of Lahore had on Sept 19, 2005, acquitted Mr Bhatti and his 12 colleagues of misusing their official position as public servants because the railway authorities failed to produce any of the prosecution witnesses.
Meanwhile, Mr Bhatti and his colleagues approached the Federal Service Tribunal, which held on July 16, 2004, that “since regular inquiry was not conducted and no reason for dispensing therewith had been given by the railway authorities, the proceedings were defective to the extent... (the employees) deserved a lenient treatment. We modify the penalty of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement...”
Mr Bhatti challenged the tribunal decision in the Supreme Court, which observed: “The illegal or irregular departmental proceedings could not have been regularised by modifying or altering the severe punishment by a lighter punishment. The tribunal in doing so committed illegality, which cannot be overlooked... we are satisfied that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend and absolve himself of the charges levelled against him which resulted in causing injustice and prejudice to him.
“The judgment of the tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the department for de novo proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the law. Departmental proceedings are to be concluded within a period of four months.”
Mr Bhatti had on Dec 3, 2005, approached the railways general manager (commercial) for his reinstatement in service, enabling him to face a regular departmental inquiry against him but has yet to find any avail of it.
Meanwhile, the railways’ senior commercial manager (passenger business unit) asked Mr Bhatti to join de novo proceedings from Nov 11, 2005. Mr Bhatti attended the proceedings and sought statement of allegations, duly signed by competent authority with incriminated material of proof to substance guilt and the list of witnesses, if any, for cross-examination.
The inquiry officer found that the charges levelled against Mr Bhatti could not be established in the light of available evidence and record. Furthermore, the authority which framed the charges could not prove its stance owing to unavailability of proper record.
The senior commercial manager (passenger business unit) exonerated Mr Bhatti of the charges of corruption but the railways director legal affair termed the inquiry report as defective.
The senior commercial manager (PBU) forwarded the case to the chief commercial manager (passenger) with the remarks that it was finalised while keeping all formalities and after consultations with all quarters concerned. The SCM sent the case to the general manager (operations) who dispatched it to the chief personnel officer (CPO) who kept the case pending from March 1 to May 4.
Mr Bhatti requested the CPO many a time in person to decide the case but to no avail. Later, the CPO sent the case to the director legal affairs who forwarded it to the GM (operations) with the same objections which were already removed by senior commercial manager (passenger business unit) in a rejoinder.
The CPO, however, managed to get case re-investigation orders from the GM (operations) which were not only in violation of the directions of the apex court but also of Section 5(1) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance of 2000.