2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH Whereas it has been observed that you Mr. Sohail Ahmed Siddiqui, Steward, of this Institute are not performing your duty diligently and efficiently.

2. Whereas it has also been observed that you always come late, and leave earlier as and when you were called by the Director, or Dy. Director your were about are not known.

3. You indulge in corruption i.e. take money from attendants and allow them to visit the wards during restricted hours. Your subordinates are normally away from the place of duty.

4. You have failed in controlling your staff, who are corrupt; there are reports that they do not perform their duty, several complaints have been received that your staff permit visitors to the wards during restricted hours. It is said that you take monthly from them.

5. That, Government property was stolen by the Sanitary Workers of this Institute namely Akram-II and Younus-II, in collusion and connivance with the Security Staff, Jalaluddin and Abdul Sattar, but you did not take any punitive steps against them, neither you informed the administration regarding that. Now Younus-II has given a statement and has confessed that you took illegal graff of Rs.1400 to suppress the case.

6. That during your duty hours a cycle of an attendant and a motor bike of attendant were stolen from the premises, F.I.R. of the case was lodged by the attendant. It shows your lack of apathy. During the Night Shift there are reports that you indulge in the use of intoxicants with your friends.

7. Whereas from the facts mentioned above you are prima facie guilty of "Misconduct" as defined in section 2(b) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 (Amended) it is proposed under section 3(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Ordinance, 2000 to impose upon you the major penalty "Removal From Service".

8. Now, therefore, you are hereby called upon to show cause as to why major penalty of "Removal From Service" under section 3 of the Ordinance, 2000 (Amended) should not be imposed upon you.

9. It is made clear to you that your reply to the above show cause should reach the authority within 15 days of the issuance of this notice, failing which ex parte decision will be taken against you. You are also called upon to convey if you like to be heard in person. (Sd) (Dr. Aftab A. Shah) Deputy Director

3. The appellant in his defence reply to the show-cause notice submitted on 27-4-2002 denied the allegations. In view of the denial of the appellant it was incumbent upon the respondents-department to hold a detailed enquiry involving all those officials as mentioned in the show-cause notice referred to above. However no enquiry was held Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to case-law reported in 2004 SCMR 316 = 2004 PLC (C.S.) 344 whereby it has been held that in cases where major penalty is imposed upon the Appellant and he denies allegation, enquiry should be held to substantiate the charges. Record is silent about holding of the enquiry in this case and even the D.R. conceded in the proceedings that no enquiry was held in this case.

4. Considering the above position, we set aside the impugned order dated 23-5-2002, reinstate the appellant in service with effect from the date he was dismissed with the direction to the Department to hold de novo enquiry proceedings based on the same allegations in accordance with law within a period of six months. Back-benefits and retention of the appellant in the service of the respondent Department shall depend on the findings of the enquiry if conducted and completed within the above said period. H.B.T. /70/FST Order accordingly