1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑This appeal is filed by appellant Sain Bakhsh against the order of his removal from service when he was working as Tapedar. The charge against him was that Village Form VII of Deh Sanjhoro, in charge of the appellant was misplaced and he did not report such misplacement of the Form to his immediate Officer. The Assistant Commissioner, Shahdadpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry into the above charge. According to the report submitted by him the said charge was not proved against the appellant. Thereafter another Inquiry Officer namely the Assistant Commissioner, Sanghar was appointed for making a fresh probe into the matter. He found the appellant guilty and on his report appellant was awarded the punishment of removal from service. It is against the said order of punishment that the appellant has filed the present appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a copy of the inquiry report on which the punishment of appellant was based was not supplied to the appellant. This fact is not denied in the written statement. The learned A.A.‑G. also frankly admits this position. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that due to non‑supply of a copy of the Enquiry Report to the appellant before basing his punishment thereon, the whole A process of disciplinary proceedings was vitiated and consequently the order of his punishment could not be maintained. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the case reported as Meer Muhammad v. N.‑W.F.P. Government P L D 1981 S C 176 wherein it has been held as follows: "After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we have formed the view that in a case where formal inquiry is held, it seems to be an implicit requirement of the relevant rules that a copy of the inquiry report should be furnished to the accused official so as to enable him to offer his explanation with regard to the adverse findings if any, recorded against him by the Enquiry officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be. Such a requirement cannot be brushed aside by saying that it would amount to a second show‑cause notice." In view of above authority it is conceded by the learned A.A.‑G. that the case has got be remanded back to the relevant authorities for proceeding afresh from the stage where the above lacuna had occurred. Accordingly we accept the appeal on the above technical ground and set aside the impugned order relating to the removal of the appellant from his service. However, we direct that the case be remanded back to the Authorised Officer concerned who will supply a copy of the Inquiry Report of the Second Inquiry Officer to the appellant and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of furnishing his explanation in the light of the said report he may proceed further and take necessary action as he deems fit, in accordance with the Sind Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973. A.E. /11I/ Sr.S Appeal accepted.