1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

C.No. CB/Disc-Case/62. Dated 20-10-1984. Mr. Saleem Qureshi, Sepoy, Central Excise and Land Customs, (Under suspension), Hqrs. Intelligence, Karachi. SUBJECT:--SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE Whereas, it has been reported in writing by Mr. Muhammad Hussain Managing Director, of M/s. Allied National Industries Ltd., Karachi that on 20-8-1984 at about 10.00 O'clock you accompanied by Inspector Mr. Ayaz Mahmood Malik entered the premises of the above factory without any lawful authority saying that you have been deputed under the direct orders of the higher authorities. .

2. Whereas, you and your Inspector started harassment to the factory staff recorded their statement and the Managing Director being compelled of the situation paid Rs.500 to you and Rs.5,000 to the Inspector Mr. Ayaz Mahmood Malik as demanded by both of you.

3. Whereas, your above action amounts to `misconduct' under Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.

4. You are, therefore, called upon to show-cause under Rule 5 (1) (iii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 within 15 days of the receipt of this notice as to why you should not be dismissed from service under Rule 4 (1) (b) (iv) ibid. Sd/ HQRS. Assistant Collector (Authourised Officer). The learned counsel for the appellant has contenced that the allegations contained in the show-cause notice were denied by the appellant and they needed to be proved at a regular inquiry before punishing the appellant therefor. He has next contended that Inspector Ayaz Mahmood Maul: also was involved alongwith the appellant but he was let off on the inquiry report held against him and, therefore, the appellant also was entitled to exoneration from the charges. This fact has been admitted in the written objections wherein it has been stated that regular inquiry was held against the Inspector Ayaz Mahmood Malik on the directions by appellate authority viz. the Central Board of Revenue and he was held not guilty and was, accordingly exonerated. The respondents have placed on record report of the inquiry officer in the case of the Inspector Ayaz Mahmood Malik, wherein the Inquiry Officer's findings were that the alleged incident of payment of illegal gratification to the Central Excise Staff was totally false and fabricated. The learned counsel for the respondents has frankly stated that there was no distinction between the case against the appellant and that against the Inspector Ayaz Mahmood Malik and he could have derived the benefit derived by the Inspector from the inquiry report.

3. It is apparent from the show-cause notice served on the appellant, reproduced above, that the allegations against him were also levelled against the Inspector Ayaz Mahmood Malik. It has been stated that both were imposed penalty of dismissal from service by adopting the procedure of issuing only "show- cause notices". The appellant did not succeed in the departmental appeal whereas the Inspector Ayaz Mahmood Malik succeeded, although at a different forum of appeal, in getting inquiry held into the allegations and finding exoneration from the charges the allegations incorporated in the show-cause notice served on the appellant were of such a nature that they could be proved by only holding a regular inquiry. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the same benefit of the inquiry report as in the case of the Inspector Ayaz Mahmood Malik. We therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant from service passed on 28-11-1984 as well as the; appellate order dated 31-1-1985. He shall be entitled to reinstate in service with all the back benefits as may be admissible to him. M.Y.H./563/Sr.F Appeal allowed.