P L D 1959 W (PLP)

Where the above mandatory provision had been ignored, the proceedings were vitiated and the order of dismissal based on them was illegal and void. P L D 1948 P C 150 and P L D 1957 Lah. 925 ref. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. This is a revision petition filed by Rahim Bakhsh, Patwari against the order of his dismissal passed by the Collector and up held by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, by his order, dated 17‑9‑1957. The Patwari was found absent for 13 days from his circle; his application for leave which. he sent up from Lahore was not accepted as bona fide, and he was dismissed. The inquiry against him was made by the Tahsildar who in his preliminary report dated 15‑3‑56, observed that the Patwari did not seem to take his service seriously and he should be removed from service. A copy of this report was supplied to the petitioner. When, as a result of the Tahsildar's report, he was charge‑sheeted, he was called upon to explain why he should not be given the "severest punishment" for the charge against him. Thereafter the Collector ordered his dismissal on the 3rd August 1956. No second "show‑cause" notice in terms of Rule 14.13 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab), Volume I, was served on him and the learned Advocate contends ]hat non‑compliance with sub‑rule (1) of rule 14.13 has vitiated the entire proceedings against him. Rule 14.13 requires that "no order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be passed unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him". The exact implications and significance of this rule have been elaborated in various authoritative decisions, notably in the judgment of the Privy Council, P L D 1948 P C 150, in which it has been held that "no action is proposed within the meaning of the subsection until a definite conclusion has been come to on the charges, and the actual punishment to follow is provisionally determined on. Prior to that stage, the charges are unproved and the suggested punishments are merely hypothetical. It is on that stage being reached that the statute gives the civil servant the opportunity for which subsection (3) makes provision. There is no difficulty in the statutory opportunity being reasonably afforded at more than one stage". Sub‑rule (1) of rule 14.13, is cast exactly on the lines of subsection (3) of section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Clause (2) of Article 181 of the Pakistan Cons titution. The same proposition has been re‑affirmed in a recent judgment of West Pakistan High Court P L D 1957 Lah. 925 in which the learned Judge has made the following observations. "It is true that the charge‑sheet also required the plaintiff to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service or punished with any of the lesser penalties, but I am clear in my mind that the charge‑sheet was served upon the plaintiff with a view to give him an opportunity to show cause against the alleged misconduct. Undoubtedly the object was to hold a preliminary inquiry in respect of the charge levelled against him. The charge‑sheet did not contain any findings that the plaintiff had been found guilty of any misconduct or that it had been proposed to dismiss him from service. It contained only an accusation as regards his misconduct. In fact at that stage no finding as regards his misconduct could have been given nor any action could have been proposed against him. As such the service of such a charge‑sheet with direction to show cause against a possible punishment could not legally have been a sub stitute for the show‑cause notice as required by the mandatory provisions of subsection (3) of section 240 of the Government of India Act". The case before me is on all fours with the case before the learned Judge of the High Court. The charge‑sheet served on the Patwari called upon him to show cause why he should not be given the "severest punishment" for the charge against him. The Inquiry Officer's report, a copy of which was furnished to him, had also suggested in the very preliminary stage that he should be removed from service. But neither the one nor the other could be deemed sufficient to ensure compliance with the terms of Rule 14.13. The "show‑cause" notice under Rule 14.13 must be served on the person concerned at the appropriate stage when a tentative finding can be reached and has been reached as to the punishment proposed to be imposed on him. Where this man datory provision has been ignored, the proceedings must be held to be vitiated and order of dismissal passed in them to be illegal and void. The order of dismissal passed against Rahim Bakhsh, Patwari is, therefore, bad in law and is set aside. A. H. Petition accepted.