1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Manzoor Ahmad Shah alias Manzoor Hussain Shah, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh as well as Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the appellant re‑instated as Sub‑Inspector with all back benefits and respondent No. 2 be directed to re‑enter his name in list 'E' w.e.f. 28‑10‑1981.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was summoned by the S.P., Muzaffargarh on 28‑10‑1981 and was told that he had for ulterior motives declared the death of Mst. Suddan as natural death. According to the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh, the appellant was mixed up with the accused in the whole matter and by holding the death of Mst. Suddan as natural, spoiled the case of the prosecution. He reverted the appellant to his offig. rank of A.S.I. w.e.f. 28‑10‑1981 vide order dated 1‑11‑1981. The appellant filed appeal before the D.I.G., Police, Multan, who dejected the same vide order dated 19‑12‑1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that without going into the merits of the case, the appeal is liable to be accepted on the ground that the reversion of the appellant was not a reversion simpliciter due to the exigency of service but was a punishment for certain ulterior motives. He has relied on 1984 P L C (CST) 1234 and P L D 1983 S C 100 and P L D 1973 S C

332. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that in view of these judgments, a show‑cause notice would be must if a civil servant is being punished due to his certain acts of omission and commission.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that once the appellant was heard in person there was hardly any necessity to give him a show‑cause notice because that is only a formality which otherwise stood fulfilled by granting him a personal hearing. According to the learned District Attorney reversion from an officiating rank to a substantive rank would not be a punishment.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and do find that it has been held in P L C 1984 (CST) 1234 Ghiasuddin v. S.P. and by a ruling of Supreme Court of Pakistan in P L D 1983 S C 100, that if a civil servant is reverted due to the exigencies of service of course that would be no punishment but where he is charged with certain acts of omissions and commission and is punished on that ground, he would be entitled to a show‑cause notice and failure of the same would vitiate the same. It will .be useful to reproduce the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan: "A fair assessment of the entire facts of the case shows that the reversion of the respondent to his original grade in the Income‑tax group was not a routine or innocent reversion. It was the outcome of the supposed misconduct of which he was guilty as Director of the Research Cell."

8. In view of the above I have got no, alternative but to set aside the impugned orders being in violation of the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as of this Tribunal. I, therefore, proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that he should be restored as Sub‑Inspector, the post he was holding at the time of his reversion and proceed against him, if necessary, after giving him a show‑cause notice, according to the law so cited above, Announced in the open Court on 17‑7‑1984.) However, there will be no order as to costs. A.E. /82/S.Tr. Appeal accepted.