2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(4) His service as civil servant remained undesirable and caused bad name to the Department by means of facts mentioned above. (5) He is inhabit of disobeying the orders of his superiors

2. The appellant did not submit reply to the show‑cause notice. However, he appeared before the Deputy Director Food, Respondent No. 1, Authority, on 12‑5‑1998. He was heard but was retired from Government service in the public interest under section 12, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 on the same date. The appellant preferred departmental appeal. His appeal was rejected on 20‑2‑1999. Hence this appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that proceedings under section 12, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 can only be taken if the ACRs of a civil servant contained adverse remarks, the adverse remarks have been conveyed to the civil servant and the same have not been expunged. He further argued that due to good service record, the appellant was promoted from Foodgrain Supervisor to Foodgrain Inspector in the year 1982. He relied upon 1991 PLC (C.S.) 33.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that allegations given in the show‑cause notice are vague, ambiguous find not related with any instance.

6. The respondents in their objections to the memorandum of appeal have repeated the grounds mentioned in show‑cause notice and have further stated that the appellant always remained absent from the centre where he was posted for procurement of wheat. His ACR for the year 1998 contained adverse remarks. His annual increment was withheld for one year. The appellant wanted posting of his own choice and impugned orders of compulsory retirement are based on facts and were passed after completion of legal requirements.

7. According to section 12, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, no order shall be passed in respect of any civil servant unless competent Authority has informed him in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to make the order and has given him the opportunity of showing cause against him.

8. The action has been taken against the appellant on 5 grounds given in the show‑cause notice as detailed in para. I above. All the grounds are vague and ambiguous. First ground is that he possesses blemished record. The adverse remarks (if any) in his ACR have not given. It is further mentioned that he was issued several warnings for improvement of work and conduct but date and time and description of the warnings have not been given. It is further not mentioned, why no action was taken against him when the appellant failed to comply with the said warnings.

9. The second ground is that the appellant is habitual absentee. The appellant has 23 years of service. He was recruited as Foodgrain Supervisor and was promoted as Foodgrain Inspector. The period for which the appellant remained absent and what action was taken, is not even mentioned.

10. The third ground is that the appellant has been given so many punishments. The description of the punishments and the allegations for the said punishment have not been mentioned. If the appellant was awarded punishment for his misdeed, the chapter is closed and he cannot be punished for the second time regarding the same allegation.

11. Fourth allegation is that the appellant remained undesirable civil servant and caused bad name to the Department. If the appellant was undesirable, why action was not taken against them at that time. Respondents have stated that the Food Department has earned bad name but it has not been mentioned what was his contribution of one civil servant for the bad name of the Department.

12. The fifth ground is that the appellant is in the habit of disobeying the orders of his superiors. It is not mentioned that the appellant was disobeying the legal orders: or illegal orders of the superiors. What were the orders and what action was taken for disobeying.

13. The purpose of issuing show‑cause notice is to provide opportunity to the appellant to explaining his position. The appellant was blamed that he has not submitted reply to the show‑cause notice. In fact, I have reason to believe that the appellant failed to understand what were the allegations against him. It was necessary for the authority to mention him clearly instances/grounds of action. The adverse remarks if any must have been mentioned in the show‑cause notice. The period of absence should have been given in the show‑cause notice. Similarly all the details of grounds for action were to be mentioned in the show‑cause notice. The show‑cause notice as discussed above is ambiguous, general in nature, has not specifically mentioned any ground under which action has to be taken. It is thus, no show‑cause notice in the eye of law. The appellant appeared before the authority on 12‑5‑1998 and he was dismissed on the same day.

14. The perusal of the appellate order dated 20‑2‑1999 reveals that the appellant requested the Appellate Authority to hold inquiry into the matter but his request was not considered for the unknown reasons.

15. Retirement under section 12, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 is in fact compulsory retirement and is a stigma on the civil servant. Regular inquiry must be conducted before passing such order, affording the civil servant the opportunity to cross‑examine the inquiry witnesses and to produce his defence.

16. It was held in 1993 SCMR 603 that for resolving controversial questions of fact, proper course would be to hold a full‑fledged inquiry where evidence has to be recorded and opportunity of cross‑examination has to be given, otherwise findings recorded would be based more on conjectures than on evidence.

17. The appellant was condemned without mentioning him the specific grounds under which action proposed was to be taken against him and he was deprived of the opportunity of explaining the charges which were ambiguous and vague. The perusal of section 12, Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 reveals that it is not for the purpose to deprive the civil servants from the opportunity of defending himself from authoritarian and unjustified orders of the authority.

18. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted. Impugned orders dated 12‑5‑1998 and 20‑2‑1999 are set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service. Intervening period shall be treated as Extraordinary Leave, without pay. There will be no order as to the costs. H.B.T./82/PST ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted