To,

1. The Secretary
(Authority)
Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication
(IT & Telecom Division), 4th Floor, Evacuee Trust Complex
Agha Khan Road, F-5/1, Islamabad.

Through
The General Manager (HRO)
(On behalf of Authority)
(Communicating Officer)

Subject:- REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

Refer: Your No. S.23-41/2019 dated 07-03-3019

Respected Sir,

At the outset I say that the answering officer has never refused to join
his posting at Revenue Office HUB. I humbly say that the management
functionaries at HUB has disobeyed the posting order even number dated
11-06-2016 and all subsequent posting orders by refusing to allow the
answering officer to join his duties.

The answering officer has failed to understand the reason for notI
humbly submit my appeal in terms of Art. 25 of the Constitution, S.24-A
of General Clauses Act, 1897 and in the light of the direction passed in
the 8th, Judicial Conference presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of Pakistan/Chairman, Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan &
dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at pg. Masood
Ahmed Bhatti & others vs Federation of Pakistan & other 2012 SCMR 152,
PTCL etc and others vsMasood Ahmed Bhatti and others 2016 SCMR &
PTCL & another vs Tariq Mehmood& others C.A. 576 of 2007 decided on
24.08.2015. I shall be grateful of your gracious authority for enforcing the
legal principle enunciated by the Courts and fair justice in my case. I trust
that your kind authority shall not compel the applicant to approach the
Court of Law for redressal of his grievances in the matter.

Facts:
1. I joined Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation under Sec. 8 of the
PTC Act, 1991on 29-04-1995 [before creation of PTCL under Sub-sec. (1)
of sec. 34 of the P.T. (Re-Organisation) Act, 1996]. My terms and
conditions of service as settled at the time of initial appointment
governed under the PTC Service Regulations defined under Sec 2 (g)
were framed by way of subordinate legislation under Sec. 20 read with
Sec 8 (2) of the PTC Act, 1991 are statutory for all the purposes.
Thereafter 01-01-1996, the applicant’s terms and conditions of service
and rights (the transferred employee as per definition under Sec 2 (t) of
 the Act) are statutory protected under P.T. (Re-Organization) Act, 1996
and guaranteed by the Federal Government under Sec. 35(2) & 36 (1, 2
& 5).

2. I am one of the highly qualified employees of PTCL. I did Masters of Arts

in Political Science, B-Tech Hons Electrical, Bachelor of Science and 3
years DAE Electronics. My educational qualification vouch that I believe
in hard work, personal improvement and integrity which are my service
ethics and part of my life. My seniors with whom I have worked gave
their words to EVP (HR) H.Qrs that substantiates my declaration.

3. I have on record more than 23 years unblemished service. I was

promoted as Technical Officer BPS-17 in September 2007.

4. A: BASIC LEGAL ISSUE

The appellant raised very important questions again during TP session. The
authority conducted the TP session has not passed speaking order
answering the said questions.

5. The charge sheet No. S.23-39/2017 dated 07-11-2017 to this answering

officer was issued under non-statutory PTCL Service Regulations-1996
in utter defiance of the settled law to change his relationship to that
master-servant under the grab of disciplinary proceedings. The same
fact was brought on record during enquiry proceedings however; the
“Authority” without applying judice mind has proceeded further and
issued show cause notice No. S. 23-39/2017 dated 31-01-2018 again
under non-statutory PTCL Service Regulations-1996.

6. The inquiry officer as well as the authority conducted TP sessions had

not taken very following important question to speaking order to meet
ends of justice.

Q.1 Why not he has considered and decided the relevant law while
conducting inquiry?

Q.2 Why the authority and GM (HRO) have not decided the law
question raised in my appeal dated 12-02-2018 and hurriedly
conducted TP session of 30-05-2018?

Q.3 Why the PTCL management is bent upon to conduct inquiry in

violation, disobey and disrespect of law?
 Q.4 Why PTCL management functionaries connected with inquiry
and show cause are continuously blatantly disobeying and
disrespecting the command of the Constitution in view of Article
5(2), flouting the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
reported Judgments at page 2012 SCMR 152, C.A. 576 of
2007, C.A. No. 230-L of 2015, and 2016 SCMR 1362 and
other relevant law to the instant case, thus having ceased to
perform duty bound to act in accordance with law in view of
Article 4 read with Articles 189, 190 and 201 of the
Constitution?

B. CASE MATERIAL FACTS

The statement of allegations is based on biased and defective report

of Mr. Shoieb who did not considered evidence submitted refuting
allegations. He represented the management during the inquiry proceedings
and also fabricated the inquiry report. He was from non-technical cadre
without technical knowledge of diesel generators operation & maintenance,
batteries, lack of understanding of SOPs, and had no vision to conduct
such inquiry as per law, rules and procedure applicable in the case of
appellant. He has fabricated concocted case against appellant for his
personal gain on the behest of third party. None of the allegations against
this appellant officer is proved without any shadow of doubt.

1. Charge No. 1 (i): Excessive per hour fuel consumption.

a. Fuel consumption depend upon proper maintenance and condition

of the generator’s diesel motor, wear and tear but factors affecting
diesel consumption of diesel generating set are unknown or uncertain
because there are various factors that increase or decrease the
amount of fuel consumed. Fuel consumption is significantly higher
when the generator is run at ½ are less load as compared to 100%
load.

b. Generator life:

i. 200 KVA manufacturing year 1993. Fully depreciated.

ii. 300 KVA manufacturing year 1991. Fully depreciated.

c. Testing on yardstick of a “Typical fuel Consumption Chart” provided

by MR during inquiry annexure “R”. The answering officer has
translated KVA to KW and Gal/hr to liter/hr. The analysis is as
under:-
 Analysis of allegation 1 (i) on the basis of typical standard fuel consumption chart
provided by the inquiry officer "Annex R"
Generators are operating at 50% load.

Standard Consumption ref.

"R" Avg.
Actual
Actual saving
Generator Power usage Efficiency
Sr. # Avg. 1/2 load usage
Size (KVA) factor Generator Fuel Consumption %
Size (kw)
Gal/hr ltr/hr ltr/hr ltr/hr ltr/hr
1 200 0.8 160 6.35 24.03 21-24 22.5 1.53 6.8
2 300 0.8 240 10.4 39.36 35-40 37.5 1.86 5.0

d. I produce another typical international fuel consumption chart in

liters available at www.ablesales.com.au, Australia as under:-

Analysis of allegation 1 (i) on the basis of typical

standard fuel consumption chart "Annex S/1"
Generators are operating at 50% load.

ABLE Avg.
Actual
SALES, Actual
Generator Size usage
Sr. # Australia usage
(KVA)

ltr/hr ltr/hr ltr/hr

1 160 Kw/200 kVa 22.90 21-24 22.5
2 280kW/350kVA 39.30 35-40 37.5

e. Mr. IdreesShaikh SE was responsible for monitoring and operation of

generators and arrangement of fuel after verifying the requirement.
The fuel supply & consumption was regularly verified by Mr.
IdreesShaikh SE and Mr. Muhammad Ali Usman SM. Neither they
nor audit found any wrongdoing.

f. Now after 3 years, the charge has been framed against the answering
officer on flimsy ground at such a belated stage.

g. The inquiry officer has not taken very following important question to
meet ends of justice.

Q1. Why the inquiry officer has misreading of fuel consumption chart
“annex R”?

Q.2 Why the inquiry officer did not accept fuel consumption chart
submitted by the answering officer “annex S/1”?

Q.3 Why the inquiry officer was bent upon to establish the said
charge when the two fuel charts negate the same?

Q.4 Why not forensic test of the two generators had not been
conducted to identify the fuel consumption ltr/hrif it is high?
 Q.5 Why the inquiry officer has not considered the audit reports that
certify the correctness of fuel consumption?

Q.6 Why not the inquiry officer has taken aging factor, maintenance
type & cost, wear and tear of two generators in this case?

Q.7 Why not the inquiry officer has taken evidence and statements
from supervisory and monitoring officer i.e. Mr. IdreesShaikh SE
& Mr. Muhammad Ali Usman SM?

Q.8 Why the inquiry officer has conducted inquiry in grotesque

caricature manner and established charge in a fanciful manner?

Q.9 Why the inquiry officer has not examined the 58% high fuel
consumption of the same generator in year 2015 comparing with
fuel consumption chart “annex R”?

Q.10 Why the inquiry officer has not considered the SOP related to fuel
consumption in case of two generators?

2. Charge 1(ii) (a): Failed to maintain/protect record of 108 (out of

120) batteries (52 from SITE and 68 from New Karachi)

a. Proper record is well maintained at both stations. Theft batteries

record with police report record was handed over to Mr. AdilSaeed
on transfer vide handing/taking over report dated 02-12-2014 at
03:50 PM.

b. Similarly record of 68 batteries was produced before inquiry

officer.

c. The inquiry officer has not taken very following important question
to meet ends of justice.

Q.1 Why the inquiry officer has failed to recover theft batteries case file
record from SITE as this answering officer handed over the same to
Mr. AdilSaeed T/Tech and produced handing/taking over evidence?

Q.2 Why the inquiry officer has failed to bring on record the unique
identification number of battery, capacity, make, year of
manufacture, type etc. if actually found missing?

Q.3 Why the inquiry officer failed to identify record time, date, place of
each missingbattery?

Q.4 Why the inquiry officer has not taken on record SOP in case of
missing/theft battery case?

Q.5 Why monitoring and controlling officers remained silent when such
events if occurred and SOP was not followed?

Q.6 Why the inquiry officer has taken statements/e-mails of Nasir AM

North Karachi KTR-III & Muhammad Sharif Manager E&M Gulsha-
e-Iqbal KTR-III on record taken at the back of the answering officer
and that too without affording opportunity to cross-examine both of
them?
 Q.7 Why the monitoring and controlling management kept waiting for
years without noticing such serious incidents if any as mentioned in
the said charge sheet and not respond timely?

3. Charge 1(ii) (b): Sold two battery banks in presences of PTCL Driver
Mr. Ikhlaq Ahmed

a. The allegation state two battery banks i.e. 8 batteries in question

whereas Mr. Ikhlaq driver in his statement has admitted that 3-4
batteries were sold to one shop in 2015 he guess in response to an
inquiry in form of question-answer dated 14-10-2017 at the back
of answering officer. He while stating about same 3-4 batteries
said that batteries were given to shop keep in exchange of new
battery for vehicle on 28-12-2017.

4. The inquiry officer has not taken very following important question to
meet ends of justice.

Q.1 Why the inquiry officer has admitted co-accused as a interest witness
against the answering officer?

Q.2 Why the inquiry officer did not administrate oath to the witness?

Q.3 Why the inquiry officer has ignored conflicting statement of the witness
driver?

Q.4 Why the inquiry officer has not identified the batteries i.e new or old,
unique identification number, make, type, year of manufacture etc.?

Q.5 Why the inquiry officer has not put to the witness to identify the shop,
date and time of sale, value of sale or identification marks of battery if
new taken in exchange?

Q.6 Why the inquiry officer identified who helped in transporting about 42
kg heavy batteries?

Q.7 Why not vehicle used in transporting such heavy batteries were not
identified along with its movement log book maintained by the witness
or tracking record of vehicle?

Q.8 Why not witness has identified the new battery taken and vehicle in
which installed?

Q.9 Why the inquiry officer failed to testify the actual number of batteries
suspected sold from the ACE-8 register?

Q.10 Why the witness kept silentfor 3 years i.e. from 2015 to 2018 and
failed to bring such a very important issue if actually happened?
5. The inquiry has been conducted in injudicious and slipshod manner
in defiance of law and statutory rules. The complainant and inquiry
officer has deliberately twisted the facts to come on certain pre-
defined conclusions. The inquiry report is based on surmises and
conjectures of inquiry officer for the reason best known to him. He
has used and allowed selected question during cross-examination to
fabricate connected links with allegations in fanciful manner making
reliance on extraneous matter.Some very important question having
direct bearing on the charge sheet was either not allowed or
considered by the inquiry officer at all. The inquiry is significantly
based on irrelevant observations. The inquiry officer gave evidence
before himself and made findings and conclusions and report after
considering such evidence. The inquiry officer has made a factually
incorrect report on this matter thus grossly violating the basic rules
of natural justice in grotesque caricature manner. The inquiry officer
was biased person without open mind. Thus law and rules have been
abused so the orders of imposition of penalty can be justified
contrary to merits and not found assailable on the technical
grounds.Justice is denied to the answering officer.

Prayers:

6. It is, therefore, humbly requested the statement of allegations, charge

sheet based of such allegations, show cause and removal from service
notifications illegal, malafide, without lawful autority/jurisdiction as
per law and rules applicable in the case of this appellant. It is
requested that fair de-novo inquiry under law i.e.
7. in accordance with the statutory terms and conditions of service as
settled by the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation or Efficiency
& Discipline Rules, 1973, as done in other similar placed cases be
conducted by an open mind person and giving fair chance of
rebutting evidence and cross examine witness against him.
8. Any other appropriate relief may be granted in the best interest of
justice.
Thanking you in anticipation.

Encl: Reply to Show cause, TP session & other record documents

Obediently yours,

Karachi
Dated: 27-07-2018

(ARIF MAJEED KHAN)

EPI # 10040038
Ex- AM OFAN KTR-III, Karachi