1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant in this case was a Forest Guard in the Lahore Forest Division and is aggrieved before us of the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Forest Division dated 16th April, 1977 whereby his services were dispensed with. The appellant also impugns the appellate order of the Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle dated 7th August, 1977 which purports to convert into removal the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Divisional Forest Officer.

2. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice dated 2nd March, 1977 for dismissal from service expressly under clause 3(2)(iii) of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1975 on the allegations that "you are corrupt or may reasonably be considered corrupt because you have a per sistance reputation of being corrupt". The appellant submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice whereafter the D. F. C. after giving him a personal hearing, on 1st April, 1977 passed the impugned order dated 16th April, 1977 dispensing with his services, operative part of which may be reproduced below with advantage: ‑ "I have gone through the case and have applied my mind. His reply to the show‑cause notice has also been considered and found unsatisfactory. Moreover he is still a probationer. His work and conduct has not been found satisfactory. He has per sistent reputation of being corrupt. His services are therefore dispensed with immediate effect." The appellant submitted an appeal to the Conservator of Forests, who heard him on 6th August, 1977 and by an order dated 7th August, 1977 converted the punishment of dismissal into removal from service.

3. The appellant contends, in the first place, that there was no material before the competent authority while passing the impugned order. No allegation of corruption or complaint of corruption or any accusa tion of maintaining standard of living higher than his pecuniary means were made known to him. In his reply to the show‑cause notice also the appellant took the same plea that there was no mention of any material adverse to the appellant's integrity in the impugned order of the D. F. C. Thus it is contended that the order is not based upon any evidence and as such is illegal and of no effect.

4. Another point raised by the appellant is that in this case the D. F. O. performed the function of `Authority' as well as the Authorised Officer. Since according to the Delegation of Power Rules as he was an authority competent to award major as well as minor punishment and was thus authority as well as Authorised Officer under the Efficiency & Dis cipline Rules, 1975 it was incumbent upon him to appoint some other authority as an Authorised Officer so that appellant was not deprived of the consideration of his case by the two independent authorities. According to the appellant this procedure was against the rules and appellant suffered from lack of proper opportunity to defend himself and thus the order passed against him was void.

5. The appellant also contests the version of the D. F. O. in the impugned order that he was still on probation. According to the appellant in his appointment order there was no provision as to probation and the notion was misconceived.

6. The appellant also relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in a case with similar facts and points of law in Appeal No. 271/77 Re M. Anwar ex‑Forest Guard.

7. We have heard the parties at length. Taking the last mentioned contention of the appellant it is observed that we have already ruled ins Appeal No. 214/76 Re: Niamat Ali v. Commissioner Lahore Division etc. that no illegality occurs the proceedings if one and the same authority acts as 'AUTHORITY' and 'AUTHORISED OFFICER' if it is defined as such under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1975. This contention on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, rebutted.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to place before us any material on which the allegations and subsequent finding of corruption of having persistent reputation of corruption could be based. According to the respondents the only evidence is that the D.F.O. himself noticed his reputation of being corrupt while on tour in his area and as such the plea of the appellant that there was no complaint against him is baseless. In our opinion the subjective opinion of the competent authority about the adverse reputation of his subordinate should be supported by some tangible evidence and the accused official should be confronted with the same. In the instant case beyond the vague charge contained in the show‑cause notice reproduced in paragraph 2 above the appellant has not been confronted with any other material against him. This was in our opinion particularly necessary when the short‑cut procedure under rule 6(3) of the E. & D. Rules dispensing with the enquiry was being adopted.

9. Since neither the accused official (appellant) was confronted with any adverse material nor was there any such material before the competent authority, we consider this case of no evidence and hold that the impugned order of the D. F. O. was invalidly passed and as such of no legal effect.

10. Since the appellant was issued a show‑cause notice assailing his conduct, the plea of his being on probation at the time of passing the impugned order is not available to the respondent in terms of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Re: Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry (P L D 1974 S C 393).

11. Ratio of our Case No. 271/62 of 1977 Re: Muhammad Anwar relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is fully attracted to this case with the result that we set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service and deemed to have been in service throughout the period he was out of service, with all benefits of pay and allowances etc. Appeal allowed.