1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).‑The appellant while working as Naib‑Qasid in the Respondent‑Organization, was served with a notice, dated 12th September, 1983 requiring him to show cause within fourteen days as to why the penalty of removal from Government service should not be imposed on him for the charges mentioned therein. In his reply dated 21st September. 1983 the appellant pleading that the charges levelled against him in the above notice, were not true, requested for appointment of an impartial Inquiry Offcer `to investigate the matter'. Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 10th November, 1983 was passed. With advantage the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below :‑ "Mr. Muhammad Subhan, Naib‑Qasid, is informed that his reply dated 21st September, 1983 to the charges contained in Memo. No. 8 (3)/76‑G, dated 12th September, 1983 against him has not been found satisfactory. Further, in view of his abundant blemished record the authorised officer has not considered it necessary to hold any further enquiry under rule 5 (3) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Nevertheless he was given full opportunity to defend himself and was also asked vide Memo. No. 8 (3)/76‑G, dated 12th September, 1983 whether he desired to be heard in person. No such request was received from him in response. In the circumstances, and on the basis of the avail able records the charges levelled against him thus stand proved.

2. In fact, he was let off and admonished innumerable times to improve his work, conduct and behaviour towards office, but his persistent indifference and incoherence towards office work now leaves little doubt to conclude that he is incorrigible and past cure. Such a tendency is apt to plague the office environment, which is neither desirable nor advisable to crop up. It has, therefore, been decided with the approval of the competent authority to terminate the services of Mr. Muhammad Subhan, Naib‑Qasid, with immediate effect on the following grounds:‑

2. A bare perusal of the above order would show that thereby penalty of termination of service was awarded to the appellant for the charges levelled against him. It is however, to be seen that under the Government, Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, one or more penalties mentioned in rule 4 of the said Rules can be imposed on an accused Government servant. It is noticeable that termination of service as such is not mentioned as a penalty in rule 4 of the said Rules, while, three of the penalties mentioned therein, namely, compulsory retirement', `removal from service' and `dismissal from service', would amount to termination of service. The impugned order is 'thus vague and ambiguous. When an Authority is empowered to impose a penalty, it is required to do so in specific and unambiguous terms. The impugned order thus suffers from the fatal defect of ambiguity and vagueness. Upholding of such defective order would be placing a premium on inefficiency demonstrated by the concerned authority. The impugned order is found to have suffered from another serious lacuna in that the charges mentioned therein at serial Nos. (i) to (ix) were taken into consideration for penalizing the appellant without affording him an opportunity to explain and defend in regard thereto.

3. In the result the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the appellant shall be re‑instated into service. Since, however, the impugned order is being set aside for technical reason, it shall be open to the competent authority to proceed afresh for the charges against the appellant in accordance with the law and in conformity with the prescribed procedure. If the appellant is so proceeded afresh then at the conclusion of such proceedings an order shall be passed by the Authority about the treatment of the period during which the appellant has remained out of job. In other case the appellant shall be entitled to the salary and all other service benefits deeming that the impugned order never existed.

4. No Order as cost. A. E. Appeal accepted.