1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Nasir‑ud‑Din Ex‑Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Addi tional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Sialkot, the Assistant Com missioner, Shakargarh, District Sialkot and the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal be has prayed that the orders, dated 12th April, 1982 and 29th May, 1982 be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Patwari Consolidation for the consolidation of village Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot in the year 1981. The consolidation proceed ings were finalized and confirmed. After about 4 months of the finaliza tion and confirmation of the consolidation proceedings an application was addressed to the C. M. L. A. by 21 persons from the village who levelled allegations against the appellant. The aforesaid application was disposed of by C. M. L. A. Secretariat and an enquiry was ordered to be instituted in the case. On the directives of the C. M. L. A. made to the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolida tion) held a preliminary enquiry/investigation against the appellant. A notice under section 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E and D) Rules, 1975, was served upon the appellant. He replied to the show‑cause notice. The reply submitted by the appellant was considered and he was imposed penalty of dismissal from service, vide the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shakargarh order, dated 12th April, 1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore which was also dismissed vide order, dated 29th May, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations against the appellant were that of corruption and it required thorough enquiry by a regular Enquiry Officer. It was further submitted by him that a preliminary enquiry was held which was slipshod and the appellant was not afforded opportunities to defend himself. This is clear from the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Shakargarh. On the date of personal hearing, on 15th February, 1982, the appellant had shown dissatisfaction on the enquiry and the appellant had presented an application requesting the A. C./Collector, Shakargarh for another opportunity to be given to him to defend himself. This request of the appellant was not accepted by the learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Shakargarh. It was thus pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that under the cireum. stances the discretion exercised by the competent authority for dispensing with the regular enquiry and issue of the show‑cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules was an arbitrary exercise and unlawful. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and this Tribunal, submitted that it has already been held that conducting of a regular enquiry in corrup tion charges is a must. In this behalf he has relied upon 1980 P L C (C S) 418, 1980 P L C (C S) 611, 1980 P L C (C S) 562 and P L D 1974 S C

393. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the A. D. C. (C), the appellant was associated in the enquiry and he was given the opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the requirements of the law in this case have been met and the appellant has not been prejudiced in the matter. It has been further sub mitted by him that as the charges were clear cut, hence, the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shakargarh was justified in proceeding against the appellant under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. I have given my 'anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record very carefully. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the law has already been settled as per judgments as quoted by the learned counsel for the appellant in para. 4 of this judgment that in a case involving charges of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to get conducted a regular enquiry. Thus, this case also involved the charges of corruption, hence it was incumbent for the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Shakargarh to get conducted a regular enquiry. No doubt a preliminary enquiry was held but it was defective in the sense that the appellant was not afforded tin opportunity to defend himself upto his satisfaction which is clear from the impugned order, dated 12th April, 1982 of the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector. Since the provision of the Rules has not been complied with in the instant case by not holding a regular enquiry hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained. We have already held the same in our earlier judgment in Case No. 564/ 1484 of 1981 announced on 6th May, 1982.

6. The upshot of the above analysis is that the impugned orders are get aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority for proceed ing against the appellant in accordance with the law as indicated above. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service to bestow him the status of a civil servant to proceed against him by the competent authority. The period for which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay. There will be no order as to cost: M. I. Appeal accepted.