1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent. Ghulam Muhammad, ex-Food-grain Inspector has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Director, Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 1-2-1982, passed by the respondent be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with retrospective effect and with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Ghulam Muhammad while working as Food-grains Inspector at P.R. Centre, Phullarwan was served with charge-sheet containing three irregularities on 27-6-1981, reply to which was filed on 6-7-1981. On 23-9-1981, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice. The appellant was served with another show-cause notice on 30-9-1981. Yet another show-cause notice, dated 9-11-1981 was served upon the appellant. The replies to the above show-cause notices were furnished by the appellant, The same were considered and the appellant was also personally heard by the respondent. He was ultimately removed from service vide order, dated 1-2-1982. The appellant filed an appeal on 20-2-1982, which was received on 21-2-1982 but no decision has been given on the said appeal so-far after a lapse of 90 days. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was served with show-cause notice on three occasions, containing serious charges which also included charges of corruption. But no regular enquiry was held in all these cases and the appellant was proceeded under rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Thus the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter. He was not given opportunities to defend himself. Preliminary enquiries were held but those enquiries were also slipshod. As the appellant has not been given opportunities to defend himself, the charges have not been proved against him and, thus, he has been punished unlawfully. The appellant's counsel prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

5. The learned District Attorney could not successfully rebut the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. I have gone very carefully through the three show-cause notices served on the appellant i.e. dated 23-9-1981, 30-9-1981 and 9-11-1981 which were served under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E.&.D.) Rules, 1975. These show-cause notices contain nine serious charges including charges of corruption. No regular enquiry was conducted in all these three show-cause notices. Relying upon Mubarik Ahmad Malik and 4 others v. Federation of Pakistan, 1980 P L C (C.S.) 418 Dost Muhammad v. Deputy Commissioner, Multan, 1980 P L C (C.S.) 611, Muhammad Anwar v. Board of Revenue and others 1980 P L C (C.S.) 562 and Muhammad Sadique Jawaid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1974 S C 393 this Tribunal has already held in Mr. Khalid Masood V. I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore and others, Case No. 564/1484 of 1981 announced on 6-5-1982, that in corruption cases holding of regular enquiry is a must to provide opportunities to the appellant to defend himself. I consider that the charges (including charges of corruption) were of such nature that the appellant should have been given opportunities to defend himself by holding a regular enquiry. Thus, the appellant has not been provided opportunities to defend himself and he has been undoubtedly prejudiced in the matter.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed strictly under the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (E.& D.) Rules, 1975 and the law mentioned above. The appellant is directed to be re-instated into service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant for proceeding by the competent authority against him. The period for which the appellant remained out of service i.e. from the date of removal from service to that of his rejoining the service shall be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.