1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant Bakht Ali who was Tapedar in Distt: Nawabshah was dismissed from service by order dated 23rd August, 1983 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah. The departmental appeal preferred by him against the said order failed, as the Commissioner vide his order dated 4‑5‑1986 upheld the appellant's dismissal from service. The present appeal is directed against the aforesaid two orders. After hearing the arguments addressed at the bar, the appeal was allowed by short order dated 2‑3‑1986 which reads as under: "Mr. Naimatullah Qureshi for the appellant present. Mr. Rasheed Akhtar Qureshi Government's counsel also present. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned order of the dismissal of the appellant is set aside. However, the case is remanded back to the Authorised Officer concerned with direction to proceed with the case afresh in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Sind Civil Servants Act (E & D) Rules, 1973, Reasons to follow". Following are the reasons in support of the above short order. The appellant was served with show‑cause notice dated 15‑2‑1979 alleging therein that on his transfer from Tapo Lalia, Taluka Moro, he did not hand over the registers specified in the notice, which were in his custody, to his successor. It was further alleged in the notice that as per report of the Mukhtiarkar Moro, the appellant had reported to him on 28‑11‑1978 that four registers of Patwari Form XV of Deh Junalo were stolen away from the box by breaking open its lock. On receipt of such report, the show‑cause notice further shows, the appellant was given a letter addressed to the SHO Moro for lodging complaint about theft of the record, but he did not go to the SHO and instead produced the said letter alongwith his statement before Mukhtiarkar Moro that the record said to be stolen was found to be lying behind the box. Despite such statement by the appellant, the record in question was not delivered by him to his successor and therefore he was charged with malafide intention of mis‑placing the public record with a view to hide some mischief played with the record. By the said Notice the appellant was also called upon to submit his reply within 14 days. It appears that the appellant submitted his reply in compliance with the show‑cause notice. The record shows that after the appellant submitted his reply as aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah directed the Assistant Commissioner Moro to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made against the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner after holding the necessary enquiry submitted his findings, on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner found the appellant guilty of the charges proved against him and passed the order of his dismissal from service as mentioned above. As provided in the aforesaid rules, the Authorised Officer had two options: First, to serve the appellant with show‑cause notice without ordering detailed enquiry and, second to give him charge‑sheet that detailed enquiry would be necessary and in that case also to name enquiry committee or enquiry officer. In the instant case the disciplinary action commenced with service of show‑cause notice on the appellant, showing thereby that detailed enquiry was not contempla?ted. However after receiving the appellant's reply to the show‑cause notice the Deputy Commissioner changed the course and directed the Assistant Commissioner to hold an enquiry. In compliance with such direction the Assistant Commissioner held the necessary enquiry and submitted his findings. It is clear from the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dismissing the appellant from service that the said order has been based entirely on the findings arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner in the enquiry conducted by him. It is an admitted position that the appellant was not associated with the said enquiry held by the Assistant Commissioner. The same was conducted in his absence and behind his back. Thus not only the procedure contained in the aforesaid Efficiency and Discipline Rules was thrown to wind but also the appellant had been condemned unheard. If detailed enquiry was intended to be held against the appellant, the procedure given in Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules was to be followed in as such as that as a first step the charge‑sheet alongwith statement of allegations had to be communicated to the appellant. This was obviously not done. Furthermore neither the appointment of Assistant Commissioner Moro as Enquiry Officer was notified to the appellant nor the enquiry was held to his presence affording him opportunity of cross‑examining the witnesses examined in course of the enquiry. Even the statement of the accused official was not recorded in the said enquiry. Despite the above irregularities, the findings arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner in that enquiry have been made the basis of the impugned order by which the appellant was dismissed from service. For above reasons the impugned order was not sustainable and as such the appeal was allowed and the said order was set aside. However the case was remanded back to the Authorised Officer concerned with direction to proceed afresh in accordance with the aforesaid rules. A.E./118/Sr.S.???????????? Appeal allowed.