1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A. O. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).‑The appellant was an Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports, posted at Hyderabad, when, by a notification, dated 21st April, 1979 he was placed under suspension. There after, he was served with a charge‑sheet, alongwith a statement of allegations, on 14th May, 1979 and required to submit his explanation in writing to an Enquiry Officer appointed for conducting the proceedings against him on the basis of the charge‑sheet. The appellant submitted his explanation, where after the Enquiry Officer conducted a Departmental Enquiry, under rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 from 1st to 5th September, 1979. After some time by a notification dated 10th June, 1980 the President was pleased under rule 3 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 to dismiss him from service on the basis of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant. Against this order, be preferred a review petition before the President on 26th June, 1980 and after having waited for the statutory period of 90 days during which he did not receive any reply to the review petition, he came in appeal before the Tribunal on 6th October, 1980. . The parties were heard on 1st June, 1983 and 2nd June, 1983. The case record and the relevant documents were examined, where-after, this order is being passed.

2. The charge‑sheet accused the appellant of lack of supervision and careless-ness, constituting the offence of misconduct, inefficiency and corruption and listed as many as 8 specific acts of omission/commission which, if established, would call for a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The relevant portions of the charge‑sheet are reproduced below :‑ "WHEREAS, you Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi, Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports, in the Office of the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad ordered issue of import permits for cars under Gift Scheme against forged and fake documents without ensuring the genuineness of the documents produced by the applicants and have acted in most irresponsible and careless manner in discharge of your duties which led to your involvement in the scandal of import of cars under the Gift Scheme. You, Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi, have deliberately committed the following serious irregularities and acts of omissions and commissions amount ing to misconduct :‑ (1) Although inmost of the cases of import of cars under the Gift Scheme (163 cases) purchase receipts, invoices and Bills of Lading were of the same date i.e. 22nd December, 1978 which is not possible yet you passed orders to issue import permits against these forged/fake documents without scrutinising these documents properly. You should have noticed, at the time of examining these papers/applications that how, it could be possible to make payment on 22nd December, 1978‑ for these 163 cars and arrange shipment on the same date. (2) You passed orders to issue import permits in cases where date of purchase receipt and invoice was the same i.e. 5th December, 1978 which is not possible in the normal course. (3) Almost in all the cases, stamped papers on which attorney had been appointed by the applicants were not in order i.e. name of purchaser and seller was not indicated on the stamped paper and you did not care to see the discrepancy in the stamped paper and ordered for issue of import permits to Attorney holders who were fake. (4) In many cases, purchase receipt did not bear the date 'but the import permits were issued under your orders. The date on purchase receipt was the vital factor to determine whether payment was mole on or before 28th December, P78, since in cases where payments had been made after 28th December. 1978 import permits for cars under the Gift Scheme were not to be issued. (5) Purchase receipts showing payments received through Bank Draft, were without date and number. (6) Signatures of applicant differ in various documents signed by the applicants. (7) Import Permits were delivered to unauthorised persons. (8) You were expected to scrutinise all documents received with applications for issue of import permits for cars carefully and follow the procedure laid down for the issue of import permits under the Gift Sheme before ordering to issue import permits for reconditioned cars ; (2) Your deliberate action in committing the above irregularities not only amounts to gross negligence in the discharge of your duties but also makes it clear that import permits were issued deliberately against forged/fake and incomplete documents ; (3) AND WHEREAS the above action amounts to gross negligence, lack of supervision, carelessness constituting the offence of misconduct, inefficiency and corruption as defined in Government. Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 which, if established, would call for a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973."

3. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and finding on 11th October, 1979. In this report, his finding m respect of the various acts of omissions/commissions listed in the charge‑sheet are summarised below :‑ Item 1: According to the Enquiry Officer, the charge had been proved to the extent that the accused officer had manifested lack of care and caution in processing the documents in all the 163 cases. Item 2: The charge was not proved as according to the Enquiry Officer, it is not impossible and improbable to issue purchase receipts and invoices on one and the same date for the simple reason that the action of only one party (the supplier is involved in such cases). According to him, it was possible that after issue, of purchase receipts, the supplier may have simultaneously issued invoices on the shippers. Item 3: The finding of the Enquiry Officer was that this charge was untenable. Item 4: According to the finding of the Enquiry Officer against this item, the allegation was false and had no basis at all. . To quote the Enquiry Officer himself, it had been alleged that "in many cases purchase receipts did not bear the date but import permits had been issued under the orders of the accused officer. Cases noted against serial Nos. 56 to 95 and 187 to 205 of the list (Exh. P/1) has been quoted as specific instances. I have gone through these cases referred to in the charge‑sheet and I find that all the purchase receipts are dated and hear the date 22nd December, 1978. This charge, therefore, has no basis and hence not proved." Item 5: This charge also was without any merit. According to the Enquiry Officer, since, the purchase receipts invariably contained a recital about receipt of the purchase price before 28th December, 1978 the omission to mention the date and number of the Bank Draft in the purchase receipts was of no consequence and did pot merit any consideration at the stage of the proceeding. Item 6: Not proved. . Item 7: No evidence had been produced to prove that import permits had‑been delivered to unauthorised persons. This allegation, therefore, also stood unproved. Item 8: No finding had been given by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it is presumed that he did not find him guilty on this point.

4. Towards the end of his finding the Enquiry Officer had observed that only charge No. 1 had been proved against the accused officer and that he had failed to scrutinise the documents diligently and with due care and caution.

5. Although the Enquiry Officer's report exonerated the appellant of almost all the charges preferred against him, the extreme penalty of dismissal from service was awarded to the appellant. This, prima facie, appears to be highly excessive and, therefore, unjustified. Although we have reasons for holding that the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of this particular allegation was not correct, assuming for a moment that the finding is acceptable, since it has not been established that the carelessness or lack of caution shown by the officer in the processing of 163 cases had resulted in loss to Government or gain to any individual or individuals or that the officer had shown carelessness and lack of caution in return for any consideration, it is difficult to agree that the mistake, if any, committed by the appellant called for a major penalty, not to speak of the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.

6. As for the correctness of the finding, itself, we find that the main charge against the appellant was that he had ordered issue of import permits for cars under Gift Scheme against forged/fake documents without ensuring the genuineness of the documents and that in doing so, he had acted in a most irresponsible and careless manner as evidenced by the fact that, in spite of the date of purchase receipts, invoices and bills of lading being the same i.e. 22nd February, 1978 in as many as 163 cases, which was not possible the appellant had passed orders for the issue of import permits against forged/fake documents without scrutinizing them properly. The report of the Enquiry Officer does not clarify whether all the 163 cases to which reference was made in the charge‑sheet were cases of forged or fake documents and whether the appellant could have detected that these were so merely because, in all these cases the three documents mentioned were of the same date. He has, however, worked on the assumption that all the three documents could not have been prepared on the same date and since in these cases, they had been prepared on the same date, the accused officer should have refused to pass orders without verifying about the authenticity of the documents in question. It is difficult to agree with the reasoning adopted by the Enquiry Officer. There is no merit at all‑in his assumption that all the three documents cannot be prepared on the same date and even some o' the prosecution witnesses had deposed that it was possible for all the three documents to be prepared on the same date. In fact, the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad, admitted that his office had been accepting applications for the issue of import permits for cars in which all the three documents, purchase receipts, invoices and bills of Lading bore the same date. The Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, Karachi also stated that there existed no hard and fast restrictions against the documents bearing the same date. He also deposed that no application had ever been rejected on the ground that the invoices, purchase receipts and bills of lading bore the same date. In the face of these clear statements by prosecution witnesses themselves, it passes one's understanding how the Enquiry Officer could hold that merely because the applications in question had all the three documents bearing the same date, the appellant should have treated them as forged/fake or bogus documents. He had no justification for making such an assumption and on the basis of that to treat the officer as having been guilty of carelessness and lack of caution. Since the very major premise, on which the Enquiry officer has based his finding against the appellant, is not true as borne out by the evidence on record, we do not see any reason for accepting the finding that the appellant showed carelessness or lack of caution in dealing with the cases in question.

7. Apart from the merits of the case which do not justify the action taken against the appellant, we find that gross irregularities have been committed in dealing with this case. Although the charges were very detailed and specific for which an Enquiry Officer was appointed and regular proceedings conducted under rule 6 of the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973, the appellant was never informed of the result of the enquiry and given a chance to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. As has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.‑W. F. P. (P L D 1981 S C 176), it is a statutory obligation of the relevant authority to furnish, the officer proceeded against with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer or the Enquiry Committee as the case may be and given him an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed against him. In this case, the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the appellant and he was not given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed against him. in fact, he had no idea of what the findings of the Enquiry Officer were and he did not know before the dismissal orders were issued what action was contemplated against him. He was, thus, materially prejudiced and the impugned order was passed almost behind his back. Even if on merit the case against the appellant was not as weak as this, this irregularity alone was enough to vitiate the entire proceedings and justify the setting aside of the impugned) order. 8, From the charge‑sheet, the report of the Enquiry Officer, and the written objections filed on behalf of the respondents, as well as the arguments of the learned counsel for the State, we could not escape the impression that the concerned authorities in the Government hierarchy were in a great deal of mental confusion on account of what was mentioned as the reconditioned cars scandal. Whatever may have been the ramification of the said scandal, we do not find from the case record or the evidence collected by the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was guilty, either through negligence or deliberate and wilful acts of omissions/ commissions of either causing loss to Government or unlawful gain to any individual or individuals or of himself deriving any illegal benefit by issuing the import permits on the basis of which the departmental action was taken against him. We, therefore, do not see what justification the authorities had in placing him under suspension and taking the action against him that they did. If they had reasons to suspect that the appellant had indulged in corrupt practices or had managed to accumulate wealth through unlawful income, it was open to them to collect evidence in these behalf and bring him to book on that charge. But, by merely stating, as they did in the charge‑sheet that by acting in a most irresponsible and careless manner, the appellant had got involved in the scandal of import of cars under the Gift Scheme, they could not expect to find justification for punishing him.

9. The very fact that, out of 8 charges, as many as 7 were found by the Enquiry Officer to be either false or baseless or untenable or not proved should be enough to expose the weakness of the departmental case against the appellant. Indeed, even a careful reading of the charge‑sheet clearly brings out that those dealing with the case had no clear idea of what fault they had found with the appellant and, therefore, they jumbled up a large number of objections, some of which were either imaginary or misconceived.. In these circumstances one even doubts the wisdom of initiating the action against the appellant.

10. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any other option but to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellant ordered to be reinstated in service, with effect from the date of the impugned order, with all the consequential benefits. No order as to costs. ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER.)‑ During the course of hearing at Karachi on 1st, 2nd June, 1983 the Hyderabad Office of the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports produced before us 275 case files, against which import permits were issued by the said office. After, my learned colleague had written the judgment on 3rd November, 1983 and sent the case to me, I discovered that none of the said case files had been brought by our staff to Islamabad. As a result, our office got in touch with the Office of C. C. I & E as well as that of the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports Hyderabad to get the record It was on 22nd December, 1983 that I got the complete record, which I have carefully gone through. Before I deal with the record itself, I would refer to the "Rules Regarding Import of Cars Against Foreign Exchange Earnings of Pakistanis Working Abroad", effective 1st July, 1975 an issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Office of the Chief Controller o Imports and Exports.

14. Annexure 'I' of the rules ibid is the application for grant of import permit for car for personal use or as a gift. Annexure `III' is the Gift Undertaking, which is to be executed by a Pakistani National, for making a gift of a car to his family in Pakistan. The said annexure is to be certified by the Pakistan Mission abroad. The important point with regard to this annexure is that in case of such Pakistanis, whose continuous stay abroad was for more than two years, earning certificate was not required. If, however, such Pakistanis temporarily visited Pakistan during the two years, with duration of stay in Pakistan exceeding two months, then they bad to provide an earnings certificate. In the instant case, the gifters have furnished certificates in a manner which exempted them from the submission of earning certificates.

15. The perusal of 275 case files shows that Annexures `I' and `III' as per rules have been filed. Even a cursory analysis reveals the following infirmities in cases of which I am quoting only two:‑ (1) IP‑424734 was issued to Mst. Alam Bibi on 4th February, 1979. In this case, the Bank Draft No. 916372, dated 5th December, 1978 has been quoted at para. 9(4)(i)(6) of Annexure 'I' but the name of the bank has not been mentioned. The sum of U. S. dollars 3,200 was remitted from U. K. on 5th December, 1978 (because this is the date of the bank draft). The receipt issued by S. A. R. G. A. International Limited, Tokyo is also dated 5tb December, 1978. (2) IP‑424735 was issued to Mst. Qasim Bibi on 4th February, 1979. Bank Draft No. 710663, dated 5th December, 1978 was remitted for 1,700 U. S. dollars from U. K. without mentioning the name of the bank. S. A. G. R. A. International Ltd. Tokyo receipt is also dated 5th December, 1978. There are a few cases of the above type where the bank draft is dated 5th December, 1978 which originated in U. K. and the receipt for the amount was issued on the same date from Tokyo.

16. There are 163 cases in which the purchase receipt, invoice and bill of lading are of one and the same date viz., 22nd December, 1978.

17. There are a number of cases, where the mode of remittance of amount has been left blank. In some cases bank draft numbers have been given (with and without date) but the name of the bank has been left blank.

18. With the above background, and in order to be brief, I shall deal with one aspect of this case i.e. whether or not it is possible that the bank draft, originating in U. K. and its receipt issued in Tokyo could be of the same date. I would say that it is NOT possible. However, in my opinion it is NOT impossible that the purchase receipt, invoice and bill of lading are of the same date though it would be a rare phenomenon and would be feasible only if the exporters had readily available ships, Even with the most modern means of communications, it would be impossible that the bank draft and its receipt could be of one date unless, of course, a gang of racketeers was operating in close collaboration and co‑ordination with one another at two places, viz. U. K. and Pakistan and this is what is doubtlessly the case. Whoever conceived the scheme would be someone working in the Import and Export Organisation of the Government of Pakistan. If not so employed, then he is well‑versed with the working of the said Government organisation. In Pakistan if it was a Pakistani working for the Japanese exporters then it was also the Office of the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports Hyderabad who were willing hands for the issuance of a large number of import permits. When we look at 163 cases for which import permits were issued in two days on 7th‑8th February, 1979 the involvement of D. C. I & E's Office at Hyderabad becomes obvious. Even if we give the said staff a credit for speed, for which they are certainly not known, no one could dispose of all these cases in two days unless they had some extra incentive awaiting them.

19. I have stated that it is NOT possible that the bank draft originating in U. K. and its receipt being given in TOKYO could bear the same date. Going through the enquiry and other record, I find that opinions have differed on this vital issue. Apparently, no one has cared to identify the time zones in which U. K. and Tokyo are situated. Tokyo being in the East, is nine hours ahead of U. K. in terms of time and hence the date. Even if money is remitted from U. K. at 1000 hours on 5th December, 1978 it would already be 1900 hours in Tokyo, by which time their business would have closed. They would be in no hurry to issue the receipt the same day even if open, because this could be very easily and more appropriately done the next morning. The purchase receipt, invoice and bill of lading of the same date, in the circumstances of difference of time zone, would be dubious. I think the racketeers had to hurry up their activities because the Government of Pakistan had imposed a ban on the import of reconditioned cars w.e.f. 28th December, 1978 unless they had been shipped on or before the said date.

20. For me it would be unnecessary to point out errors/omissions in each and every case. There is hardly a case in which one or the other shortcoming is not visible.

21. I would say without hesitation that charges Nos. 1 and 2 stand established beyond any reasonable doubt. Due to the fact that the said two charges stand proved, charge No. 8, which is, actually, a blanket charge also stands proved. It is not merely a case of lack of diligence or care on the part of the appellant. It is a case of his proven involvement in the scandal. Had he acted in an honest manner he would have discovered what was happening around him. For him to raise hue and cry just as the cat was coming out of the bag after he had issued large scale permits, could be of no avail later on. 22. 1f the Deputy Controllers Karachi and Hyderabad had been issuing import permits where bank drafts, purchase receipts, invoices and the bills of lading bore one and the same dates and orders had been placed from U. K. on Japan, then those cases, too, need to be re‑examined and the said Deputy Controllers questioned. It is not a question of hard and fast rules as suggested by Deputy Controller Karachi. It is a matter of vigilance based on common sense as to whether something can or cannot be possible.

23. It would be worthwhile for the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to carry out a survey of the years 1980‑82 (three years) to ascertain how many cases have been on record throughout Pakistan where bank drafts, purchase receipts, invoices and bills of lading bear one and the same date. I am sure it would be a worthwhile study and not a difficult one provided, of course, those whose records are to be scrutinized are assured that it is a mere study with a view to improving our system and that its results would not be intended to harm anyone. Unless this is done, the suggested survey would not be reasonably accurate.

24. The Deputy Secretary (Enquiries) Establishment Division (Mr. Wazir Farman Ali) had been deputed vide letter, dated 14th May, 1979 to conduct an enquiry into this case. Mr. S. A. R. Naqvi, Controller C. C. I & E.'s Office was nominated as the departmental representative. The appellant (A.‑G. Qureshi, Assistant Controller Imports and Exports, Hyderabad) was served the charge‑sheet together with the statement of allegations by Secretary, Ministry of Commerce on 14th May, 1979. The appellant addressed his 13‑page defence reply, dated 2nd June, 1979 to the Enquiry Officer denying all the charges.

25. The Enquiry Officer kept a systematic record of his day to day work from which it is evident that the appellant was throughout present to crose‑examine witnesses, peruse the relevant record and lead his defence. In short, the appellant had been afforded full opportunity to defend himself. It is on record that the appellant was allowed by the Enquiry Officer to make any written submissions as a result of proceedings which had been concluded on 5th September, 1979. On 8th September, 1979 the appellant furnished to the Enquiry Officer, a further 8‑page defence statement supplementing his earlier statement, dated 2nd June, 1979. In my opinion, the Inquiry Officer behaved magnanimously, though correctly, toward the appellant. The record bears testimony to this fact. It is, therefore, patently uncharitable on the part of appellant to blame the Inquiry Officer for bias at para. 14(c) of the memo of appeal.

26. A letter dated 18th February, 1980 was addressed by the appellant to the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce with regard to personal hearing. This is a 9‑page defence reply wherein the appellant has protested his innocence, though admitting, that in certain cases bogus papers had passed as genuine and the import permits issued by Hyderabad office like all other offices in Pakistan. This particular letter was placed before the Secretary, Commerce at the time of personal bearing of the appellant on 18th February, 1980.

27. The appellant was dismissed by the President of Pakistan vide gazette notification, dated 10th June, 1980.

28. Certain technical objections have been raised as to the maintain ability of legal action taken against the appellant. These objections, which I think to be worthwhile, are tabulated as under for subsequent treatment :‑ (a) No specific penalty was proposed in the charge‑sheet or at any subsequent stage of the departmental proceedings. Therefore, no reasonable opportunity to show cause against the `proposed action' as envisaged by the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973 has been afforded to the appellant. (b) The statement of Allegations was unsigned. As such it was without any authenticity. (c) That it was in violation of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977 and rule 10 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, to forward the Review Petition of the appellant, which was a Statutory Review Petition, to the Ministry of Commerce for action. The Statutory Appellate/Reviewing Authority, therefore, failed to exercise the powers vested in it by the Law by not deciding the appellant's Review Petition itself. (d) That no copy of the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer bad been supplied to the appellant alongwith the final order. It was also not supplied in spite of appellant's request and as such serious prejudice was caused to the appellant at all times, particularly at the time of making statutory `review petition' to the President of Pakistan.

29. I shall deal with the above legal technical objections one by one ad seriatem :‑ (a) It is clearly laid down in para. 3 of the charge‑sheet, dated 14th May, 1979 that if the charges were established, it would call for a major penalty. The requirement of rules would, therefore, be deemed to have been met. It is not necessary to specify the exact major penalty hnd this view has been held by the Tribunal in numerous judgments. (b) The appellant knew very well that the statement of allegations was authentic as it related to the charge‑sheet which was signed. If he thought that the said statement of allegations was not authentic, he should have said so at the time of replying to this charge‑sheet. The objection is irrelevant now, apart from being without substance. (c) The appellant would know very well that the President could not, possibly, pass orders on appellant's review petition out of hand. The said review petition herd to be processed by the Ministry concerned before being resubmitted to the President. The objection is not only untenable, it is also irrelevant. (d) There are no rules which would support the contention of the appellant. If I presume for the sake of argument that the Ministry concerned should have done so and that not doing so has been an irregularity, I cannot disregard the fact, in the instant appeal, that . no prejudice was caused to the appellant by this irregularity, if irregularity it was. He was fully conversant with the charges. The evidence was recorded in his presence and hearing with freedom to cross‑examine witnesses and to lead his defence. He had access to the relevant record. Apart from his first defence reply, he was allowed to file a supplementary reply after the enquiry had been concluded. He was given a personal hearing by the Authorised Officer before whom the appellant also placed his written defence. Viewed in this context, to demand anything more on mere technicalities would not be tenable. What is of utmost importance is that the defence of an accused official should not be prejudiced. In the instant case, no such infirmity is visible. Placing reliance on the well known case of Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.‑W. F. P. Government P L D 1981 S C 176 which had also been relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, at page 183 of the said judgment, it is ruled by way of a dictum that in cases of enquiries where defects or irregularities may be discovered then such defects or irregularities, by themselves, would not vitiate the proceedings so long as the defence of an accused official is not materially prejudiced thereby. Those are also the views held by the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Riaz Ahmad Khawar v. Ministry of Health (Appeal No. 80 (K)/79) decided on 10th March, 1982 P L C 686). In another case, the Tribunal had drawn a distinction from Syed Mir Muhammad's case. This was done in Appeal No. 146(R)/1981 (Zoheer Ahmad v. Population Planning Division) wherein the Tribunal had held that failure to supply the appellant with a copy of the enquiry report had been established and though it was an irregularity yet it had caused no prejudice to him. The appellant went to the learned Supreme Court. While refusing to grant special leave to appeal, the learned Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal and said :‑ "The failure to supply the copy of the report would not make the order bad as he was aware of the charge and had defended himself in regard to it. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in saying that no prejudice had occasioned to him."

30. To conclude, I would say that having been given a reasonable opportunity of defence, the appellant has been found guilty of charges Nos. 1 and 2 and thereby of charge No. 8.

31. With the above observations, I would respectfully disagree with my learned colleague. While so doing, I uphold the punishment imposed upon the appellant and dismiss his appeal with costs fixed at Rs.

100. JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal bas come up before me under section 3‑A (2) (b) of the Service Tribunals Act, (LXX of 1973) on a difference of opinion between the two learned Members, Mr. A. O. Raziur Rahman and Brig. Abdur Rashid.

2. The facts are given in detail in the two orders and 1 need not reproduce them. The appellant was found guilty by the Inquiry. Officer of charge No. 1 only, which reads as follows, and was exonerated of the remaining seven serious charges:‑ "Although in most of the cases of import of cars under the Gift Scheme (163 cases) purchase receipts, invoices and Bills of Lading were of the same date, i.e. 22nd December, 1978 which is not possible yet you passed orders to issue import permits against these forged/fake documents without scrutinizing these documents properly. You should have noticed, at the time of examining these papers/applications that how it could be possible to make payment on 22nd December, 1978 for these 163 cars and arrange shipment on the same date." My brother, Mr. Raziur Rahman has opined that charge No. 7 has not been established. On the other hand, my brother Brig. Abdur Rashid is of the view that the charge is fully established. Brig. Abdur Rashid has given reasons which it is difficult to rebut in the absence of explanation from the appellant that the charge has not been proved, However, the appellant has been seriously prejudiced due to non‑supply of inquiry report to him and also due to absence of notice, requiring him to explain why the penalty of dismissal should not be imposed upon him. This aspect of the case has been discussed by my brother, Mr. Raziur Rahman, while relying on the case of Syed Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.‑W. F. P. (P L D 1981 S C 176). Brig. Abdur Rashid has not given cogent reasons for disregarding or distinguishing the law laid down in. the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In view of these facts, I accept this appeal and set aside the order of dismissal and direct that the proceedings should start afresh from the stage where the mischief was done. The appellant should be supplied with a copy of the inquiry report and the copy of the views of the Authorised Officer and should also be asked to explain as to why major penalty of dismissal may riot be imposed upon him. These documents shall then go to the authority which shall make the final decision.

3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly as above. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

4. The order of the Chairman is to be treated as order of the Tribunal and is to be complied with. A. E. Case remanded.