1987 PLP 1774 (SCMR)

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 12‑5‑1983 by which an appeal filed by appellant was dismissed and the order of his dismissal from service passed after departmental enquiry conducted against him was upheld. The facts briefly stated are that while appellant was posted at Sariab Check Post, Quetta as an Inspector in the Collectorate of Central Excise and Land Customs, a notice dated 28‑9‑1983 was issued to him to show‑cause why a major penalty may not be imposed on him for certain misconduct. After appellant made a reply to the show‑cause notice he was served with another notice dated 19‑10‑1977 by way of an amendment of the first show‑cause notice. Appellant furnished a supplementary explanation on 25‑10‑1977 which was not found satisfactory, and he was removed from service by the order, dated 25‑10‑1977. Appellant's appeal against this order was allowed on 12‑2‑1979 but it was directed that departmental proceedings should be held against him afresh. Some departmental proceedings proved to be defective but finally on a charge‑sheet dated 2‑5‑1979, he was removed from service by the order dated 6‑11‑1979. Appellant filed a departmental appeal which was rejected, and he then filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was also dismissed by the judgment dated 12‑5‑1983. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court by the order dated 18‑2‑1986 to examine the submission, inter alia, that the departmental enquiry held against appellant was vitiated for the reason that admittedly the charge‑sheet and the statement of allegations to be annexed thereto were not drawn and served on the appellant as required by the provisions of Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. For this submission reliance was placed on the rule laid down by this Court in "Mir Mohammad v. Government of N.‑W.F.P. P L D 1981 S C 176". Appellant had raised this plea before the Service Tribunal but it was rejected on the ground that he was already aware of the charge levelled against him in the previous proceedings and according to the Service Tribunal, appellant "had not been able to explain to our satisfaction that failure to serve show‑cause notice had prejudiced the appellant, nor it is established that non‑supply of the enquiry report has, in any way, affected the merits of the case". We have gone through the record in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. We find that nor only that there was failure of service of show‑cause notice and, non‑supply of statement of allegations, but petitioner was not supplied with a copy of inquiry report and the recommendation of the inquiry officer. In the circumstances, there is force in the submission made by the appellant that the rule laid down by this Court in the case of 'Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.‑W.F.P.' has not been followed. We consider, therefore, that the Service Tribunal should have allowed the appeal and set aside the order of appellant's removal from service, leaving it open to the relevant authorities to proceed with the departmental proceedings against appellant from the stage the first error in the proceedings should be corrected. The appeal is accordingly allowed as above, with the result that the impugned order of the Service Tribunal and the order of Appellant's removal from Service are set aside. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. S. Q. /S‑54/S Appeal allowed.