1983 PLP (C (PLC)

Haroon‑ul‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Bashir Ahmad Salik has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the Order No. 6082‑6147/4‑61, dated 26‑2‑1981, passed by respondent No.1 and Order No. 17162/4‑14 Estt. dated 12‑9‑1981, passed in appeal by respondent No. 2, in which" he has impleaded the Director, Rapid Soil Fertility Survey and Soil Testing Institute, the Director‑General Agricultural (Research), Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad and Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that impugned orders so mentioned above be set aside and appeal be accepted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant who was serving as Senior Clerk, Rapid Soil Fertility Survey Laboratory was found guilty of misconduct under E & D Rules, 1975, for seeking promotion by illegal means and showing least interest in, his work. He was proceeded under E&D Rules by the competent authority and was reverted from the post of Assistant to the post of Senior Clerk and placed under suspension vide order dated 18‑5‑1980. He was served with charge‑sheet and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer vide registered letters called upon him to appear before him but he did not attend the inquiry. He was again called vide letter dated 14‑10‑1980, to appear before hips on 25‑10‑1980, but he did not appear. He was served with a show‑cause notice dated 27‑1‑1981 and was directed to submit his written defence, but he failed to do so. He was issued a final notice through Press daily Wafaq and Mashrig dated 18‑2‑1981, but he did not turn up for defence upto 24‑2‑1981. This is how he was dismissed from service. His appeal was considered time‑barred and then stood rejected. Hence this appeal. .

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the parawise comments submit ted by the respondent No. 1.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant without adverting to the merits of this case has submitted that all proceedings taken against the appellant suffer from one patent defect, i. e. he has been condemned without being heard. He has argued that given address of the appellant was village Dussari, Tehsil Shakargarh District Sialkot and the same was available with the respondent but despite this undisputed fact all the correspondence has been made and notice issued at an address which was incorrect i.e. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Salik care of Agricultural Chemist (S. P.), Muitan, where the appellant never lived, in. this way it has been urged that all proceed ings so taken against the appellant stand vitiated and golden principle of natural justice audi alteram parlem stands completely violated. The learned counsel has submitted that when some of the friends of the appellant brought to his notice that there ‑was a notice published in Urdu papers calling upon him to appear, he at once appeared, and informed the respondent No. 1 of the entire situation through Annexure 'F' an appli cation dated 26‑2‑1981.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that proceedings taken against the appellant were according to the Rules so laid down in this behalf and no exception can be taken against it.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the main issue of the case i.e. whether appellant was duly served with notices on the correct address or not and find that all the notices so sent to him were at an address at Multan whereas the appellant after his suspension, shifted to his parental village Dussari, Tehsit Shakargarh, District Sialkot. If we would have found that the respondent was only in possession of Multan address arid not the village address of the appellant, then we would have considered the course so adopted by the respondent as justified but on the converse what has transpired is that respondent were in full knowledge of appellant's correct address and this is how he was ultimately informed of his dismissal. This un-contraverted fact knocks the bottom out of the respondents' stand. A person livirig in a far‑flung rural area would hard, nerd newspapers and, therefore, the impact of the publicity through the media, would hardly be of any avail against this manner of service.

8. In view of the established fact on the record that the respon dents in this case have been proceeding on a wrong address while they were in possession of the correct address, the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant are liable to prevail. The principles of audi aleram partem are enshrined in the Holy Qur an itself with reference to Sura Bani Israil. The Allah Almighty the creature of mankind has imposed upon Himself the duty to ask the man (His creation) to explain before he is condemned. We therefore, set aside; the impugned orders as violative of principles of a natural justice and remand the case with the direction to give chance to the appellant to defend himself and then take necessary action, if the com petent authority feels dissatisfied with such defence.

9. The result is, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case for affording full opportunity to the appellant as laid down under the E & D Rules and so provided by the settled law by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. A. E. Case remanded.