1978 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

MALIK, HABIBLILLAH KHAN (MEMBER).‑In the instant case the appellant has lodged an appeal against the order of respondent No. 2 who is at the apex to deal with matter, whereby he has been removed from service after enquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. According to the appellant the enquiry has not been made as defined under rule 5(2) of the Baluchistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline Rules) of 1975 particularly laying stress on issue touching the necessity of attaching the statement of allegations with charge communicated to appellant (as required under rule 3(4)(b) of the above rules), which has not been done in the case and also pointed out that the authority and authorised officer had no inherent powers under the aforesaid rules to remove an employee without a legal and no proper departmental enquiry. Rule 9 of above‑mentioned rules does play its role here.

2. Then and after embarking on an examination of the record it has come to the light that the statement of allegation which is the essential requirements of rule 5(4)(b) has not been supplied to the appellant. II need not any more explain the importance here but to point out for sake of justice that the statement always contains details of allegations to facilitate the accused to ensure it/these elaborately as he has the full‑fledged right within the law to defend himself. Tile charge‑sheet annexed to record contains charges against some other officers who have been proportionately punished. The Tribunal further need not to go in the logic but to confine to rules. Since the rules have not beers observed in the inquiry rigidly therefore the entire proceedings against respondent No. 2 are illegal and order of removal from service pertaining to Mr. Ikram‑ul‑Haque is a nullity and void ab initio. In my opinion he may be re‑instated and an enquiry afresh may be conducted while observing rules related to such action if desired or need be. FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH (CEIAIRMAN).‑I agree with the finding that the manner in which the appellant was removed from service amounted to coddemning him without affording him a proper opportunity to defend himself. A simple show‑cause notice was served upon him without supply ing him the statement of allegations. Although he was proceeded against under rule 5(3) and not rule 6, still this rule read with rule 5(4)(b) of the Baluchistan (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1974 would suggest that even in case when only a show‑cause notice has been served upon an accused, he should be supplied with a copy of statement of allegation. Without this, the requirement of rule 5(3)(b) of giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed action, cannot be said to have been complied with. No doubt the show‑cause notice contains the details of the allegations but this is not sufficient for dispensing with the above requirement. Again the nature of the allegations against the appellant called for a detailed inquiry under rule

6. The decision of the authorised officer to dispose of the matter in a summary manner as provided in rule 5(3) does not appear to be priper. This is another reason for holding that proper opportunity for showing cause against the proposed action, has not been afforded to the appellant. Consequently the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13‑9‑1975 of respondent No. 2 removing the appellant from service is set aside. The respondent may, if so advised, hold fresh inquiry against the appellant, as indicated above. Appeal allowed.