2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LAGHARI, (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th June, 2003 passed by the Registrar, of this Court whereby the appellant was removed from service on the charges of misconduct.

2. Disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were initiated by issuing him a show-cause notice dated 18th August, 2002, which reads as under:-- "Show Cause Notice You Rashid Hussain, Bailiff, High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Larkana are hereby informed that it is proposed to take action against you for misconduct under the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules on the following ground: GROUNDS That you used to flee to your home Town at Sukkur on your own sweet will without obtaining prior permission or getting your leave sanctioned. That you are in habit to indulge in self-granted leave despite the warnings. That your above act amounts to misconduct. You are hereby called upon to show cause in writing within ten days of the receipt hereof as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, You may however, state whether 'you wish to be heard in person. (MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI) REGISTRAR"

3. The appellant replied the show-cause notice. However the respondent was not satisfied with the same and a final show-cause notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant was given personal hearing but he could not rebut the allegations levelled against him as such penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him. Departmental appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 5th November, 2003, Hence this service appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh. We have also examined the material available on the record.

5. It must be stated at the outset that perusal of contents of final show-cause notice clearly and obviously reveals that it is quite vague. It does not contain Specific allegations levelled against the appellant.

6. It is well-settled that the show cause notice must contain specific, and explicit allegations, mentioning therein the minute details of misconduct allegedly committed by a civil servant. The purpose and the logic behind the above settled principle is to enable the civil servant to explain his position vis-a-vis the allegations, and to provide him an opportunity to rebut the charges, which is not possible unless the details of the accusations and brought to the notice of the delinquent official.

7. In the instant case, the appellant was charge-sheeted for misconduct on the accusation of fleeing to his home town Sukkur without obtaining prior permission or getting leave sanctioned. He was further charged for being in habit of indulging in self-granted leave despite warnings.

8. The show cause notice, which was the basis of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant, was conspicuously lacking in the particulars as to on what occasions, the appellant proceeded to his home town without obtaining prior permission, and/or without getting his leave sanctioned. The appellant was charged of being in habit of indulging in self-granted leave but again no specific instances were cited to show that the appellant has formed such habit. Even no particulars of the warnings, claimed to have been issued to the appellant were mentioned in the said show-cause notice.

9. We have noticed that in his reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant had denied the allegations, claiming that he never remained absent and was attending his duty punctually and regularly.

10. Learned Additional Advocate-General half-heartedly attempted to justify the action, pleading that even subsequent to issuance of show-cause notice dated 18-8-2002 appellant did not improve his conduct. Regrettably we are not persuaded and are unable to accept the proposition put forth by learned Additional Advocate-General for the simple reasons that for any subsequent act of omission and commission, the delinquent official can be and should be charged separately. But in any case it will be no justification for upholding a penal action based on a defective show-cause notice.

11. Since we have arrived at a conclusion that the show cause notice served upon the appellant was bereft of the required particulars, as such the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to properly explain his position vis-a-vis the allegations, we are therefore of the view that all the subsequent proceedings against the appellant were vitiated. Resultantly the order imposing penalty of removal from service upon the appellant is set aside. The respondents shall, however, serve a fresh show-cause notice upon the appellant containing the specific instance and details/particulars of the acts of omission and commission, and conduct further proceedings strictly in accordance with the law. However such show-case notice be issued within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order, and the proceedings be concluded as expeditiously as possible. Reinstatement of the appellant and payment of dues/salary shall be dependent on the result of the fresh proceedings. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./R-3/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.