1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑In this case the appellant is aggrieved by the order of Governor/MLA dated 5th December, 1979 reverting him from the post of XEN to the rank of Assistant Engineer on the charge of gross irregularities committed in the construction of new block of Fatima Jinnah Medical College Hostel and Lecture Theatres. In this case the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice, dated 12th February, 1979 on the following 13 charges :‑ (1) The concrete pavement of the approach road is not only uneven and poorly finished but also far below the specification. (2) The quality of plaster work both internal and external as per test report is 1:5.64 and 1:3.80 against the specification of 1:5 and 1:3 respectively. (3) The mosaic sinks provided in the pantry are of poor quality with the result that one sink has already developed a crack even before being put to use. (4) The joinery work in door shutters etc. is of low quality. (5) The panel door fixtures and those of steelite windows are of, sub standard quality, inferior Material and improper fabrication. (6) The concrete gril (Jali) is crudely finished and improperly fixed. (7) Most of the towel rails in the toilets have become rusty and mirrors faded even before use. (8) E.I. Switch boxes are substandard. (9) By way of unnecessary splitting of works, seven more contractors were entered into for completion of the finishing work. The works were splitted to bring the same within your powers in violation of rules which has resulted in poor quality due to more number and lower class contractors. (10) The non‑scheduled items namely:‑ (a) Wood work in Almirahs/Wardrobas. (b) PVC water pipe heavy duty for wash hand basins and sinks. (c) Waste coupling heavy duty for wash hand basins and sinks. (d) Cement concrete sinks finished with mosaic topping finished in white chips ; have been paid at exorbitant rates. (11) Requisite percentage of check measurements of entries made by Sub Engineer in the M. Bs. were not carried out as required under the rules. (12) Construction of approach road, boundary wall, additional store etc. although allotted to M/s. Taj‑ud‑Din & Co., were actually executed by M/s. Inter‑home Const. Co., through private arrange ments without the approval of the Department as per Rules. (13) Stair railing is not properly acrewed and few steps are somewhat uneven. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Notice read as follows :‑ "In view of the carelessness and gross negligence on your part as mentioned above, you have been found to be inefficient in terms of rule 3(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. It is, therefore, proposed to impose upon you one of the penalties as given in rule 4 ibid." After receiving his reply the case was processed by the Department and the Secretary C & W Punjab recommended the reversion of the appellant from the post of XEN to that of Assistant Engineer which was approved by the Governor/MLA on 7th November, 1979. However, it was notice at that the appellant had not been allowed any opportunity of personal hear ing before making recommendations by Secretary C & W or passing of the impugned orders by the Governor/MLA which was contrary to the requirements of rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 which provided as under :‑ "Action by the Authority.‑‑‑In the case of any proceedings record of which has been reported for orders under sub rule (4) of rule 6 or sub‑rule (8) of Rule 7. the authority shall after affording the accused an opportunity of being heard in person pass such orders as it may be fit." The appellant was accordingly summoned by the Secretary C &. W for personal hearing on 22nd November, 1979 but again thereafter the case did not appear to have ever been placed before the Governor/MLA till 5th December, 1979 when the orders were formally issued for communica tion to the appellant. The appellant filed review petition dated 5th January, 1980 which too was rejected on 18th March, 1980 without granting him a personal hearing. The appellant besides his contentions on merits has raised the legal issue that due opportunity of hearing has been denied to the appellant. Moreover the show‑cause notice was also defective in as much as it fails to specify any penalty. Rule 4 provided both for major and minor penalty and the appellant was never given to understand as to what action was proposed against him. Both the contentions raised above could not be adequately met with by the Department. Admittedly the first order dated 5th December, 1979 was issued without granting personal hearing to the appellant. Thus it was a clear violation of rule 8 of the E & D Rules. 1975. Even after granting the hearing to the appellant on 22nd November. 1979 the case was never placed before the Governor/MLA. Thus the aforesaid hearing did not cure the defect of personal hearing. Thus the defence pleas raised by the appellant during the course of personal hearing on 22nd November, 1979, do not appear to have been considered by the competent authority at all. Even the show‑cause notice failed to specify the action proposed against the appellant. The appellant has the legitimate grievance that he was not apprised of the quantum of proposed punish ment likely to be imposed upon him. Thus the grievance of the appellant that he had suffered material prejudice in his defence appears to be well founded. We therefore accept: this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Department. We do not feel called upon to adjudicate upon the other contentions raised by the appellant as the order merits to be set aside being contrary to the requirements of rules 6 and 8 of E & D Rules, 1975 itself. The case is accordingly remanded to the Department. Case remanded.