1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant was an Assistant in the Public Health School at Karachi when he was served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations. There were as many as many as 14 charges against him. He submitted his reply to the said allegations. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold a detailed enquiry into the allegations made against the appellant: After holding the usual enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. He found the appellant guilty for only two charges, namely charge No. 9 and charge No. 10 which read as under: "9, During your stay at Sind Govt. Lyari General Hospital Karachi you failed to satisfy your controlling officer by your work and conduct, as your way of talking/ replying and writing as well were found un-polite (rude).

10. While resuming at the new place of posting you produced Medical Certificate as well as Fitness Certificate from Abbasi Shaheed Hospital (K.M.C.) Karachi which proved to be forged as per Letter No.MSA/SH/Estt/ 81/85, dated the 9/8th January, 1985. Thus you have committed a forgery by submitting false Medical Certificate." The appellant was ultimately compulsorily retired from service vide order of Deputy Director Health Services, dated 6th June, 1987. He preferred departmental appeal against the said order of compulsory retirement and after expiry of the statutory period of 90 days, the appellant came to this Tribunal in the present appeal. Mr Riaz Hussain argued the case on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Abdul Sayeed Khan Ghori, Govt. counsel submitted his arguments for the official respondents. We also went through the mass of record available on the file of this Tribunal. In course of the arguments made at. the bar, it was pointed out to us that the enquiry was held in absence of the appellant who therefore did not get opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, whose evidence was recorded during the enquiry. In this connection reference may be made to the appellant plea taken in paras 6 and 7 of the memo of appeal. Correspondingly the reply given to these paras in the written statement submitted on behalf of the official respondents is totally evasive. Despite that we called upon the learned Government counsel to show us from arty document in the record of the case that appellant's contention that the enquiry was held not in his presence has no truth in it. Even though departmental representative Syed Qaiser Imam Hashmi was available in the Court to assist the learned Govt. counsel, yet the latter could not lay his hands on any such document. Accordingly we are convinced that the enquiry was held in absence of the appellant and therefore he got no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined in course of the enquiry. Thus, the mandatory requirement of Sub-rule (2) of rule 6 of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 was not complied with. Consequently such non -compliance of the rules vitiated the enquiry proceedings. The impugned order of punishment awarded to the appellant was obviously rendered unsustainable. For above reasons we set aside the impugned order and accept the appeal. However, we are of the view that this is a fit case to be remanded back to the concerned Authorised Officer. Accordingly he is given direction that he should require the Enquiry Officer to recall the witnesses examined by the Department in course of the enquiry, after issuing notice to the appellant and allow him the opportunity to cross examine the said witnesses if he so desired. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer will resubmit his report making additions/ alterations he considered necessary. On receipt of such report the Authorised Officer will proceed further in accordance with the rules. Pending the completion of the above process, the appellant will remain under suspension unless of course the authority concerned deems fit to reinstate him in service in the meantime. S.Q/152/Sr. S Case remanded.