1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SARFRAZ HASAN (MEMBER).‑‑Maqsood Ahmad lqbal, Ex‑Food‑grains Inspector, Purchase Centre 47/5‑L, District Sahiwal has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab and Deputy Director Food, Multan Region as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal Maqsood Ahmad has prayed that the order of his dismissal from service passed by Deputy Director, Food Multan Region (respondent No. 2) and conveyed to him vide his endorsement dated 22‑8‑1985 may be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

3. The facts of the case are that District Food Controller, Sahiwal issued a show‑cause notice dated 2‑10‑1984 against the appellant when he was posted as Food-grains Inspector, Purchase Centre 47/45‑L, District Sahiwal. The show- cause notice in `Urdu' contained 9 serious allegations against the appellant on grounds of negligence, carelessness and dishonesty. The wording of the show‑cause notice showed that it was issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Emergency Squad of Director Food, Punjab received through Deputy Director Food, Multan Region vide his letter No. F.E.Emg‑Sq‑84/3095, dated 19‑9‑198.1. Before submitting his reply to the show‑cause notice, the appellant requested for a copy of the above‑mentioned report submitted by the Emergency Squad on the basis of which he had been issued the show‑cause notice. However, his request was not accepted by the District Food Controller, Sahiwal vide his No. 1023‑24/EC‑85, dated 21‑1‑1985. Accordingly the appellant submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice on 26‑1‑1985 to the District Food Controller, Sahiwal. The District Food Controller, Sahiwal submitted his findings on 24‑2‑1985 to the Deputy Director Food, Multan Region (respondent No. 2). However, the respondent No. 2 discussed the findings with the District Food Controller, Sahiwal and asked him to submit a supplementary report after reconciling some discrepancies. The District Food Controller, Sahiwal submitted his supplementary report on 13‑3‑1985. According to this report the following allegations were stood proved against the appellant "(1) He facilitated the fraudulent drawal of Rs.57,337 and Rs.39,754 (total Rs.97,091) through purchase bill No. 3/1280 and 4/1280 both dated N 6‑1984 respectively by engaging un‑concerned persons at the centre namely Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad, a suspended Food-grains Supervisor and Sated Akhtar (his nephew). (2) He failed to keep daily liaison with the Bank authorities for verification and cross‑checking of the bills tendered by him and the payment made by the bank. (3) He started purchases of wheat without getting the bank booth opened at Purchase Centre, 47/5‑L and arranged payment at Ghalla Mandi Branch, Sahiwal, causing a loss to the department on account of extra charges for a Bank Booth without its opening at 47/5‑L. (4) He failed to keep the P.R. documents in safe custody. (5) He engaged un‑authorised persons at his centre to run the official business. (6) He purchased 19921 bags of wheat from Chowk Sikandar, 16 K.M. away from 47/5‑L towards Bonga Hayat and showed its despatch from 47/5‑L to Bonga Hayat covering a distance of 28 K.M. thus allowing the contractor to claim Rs.22,707 in excess with ulterior motive on account of bogus transportation. (7) During the scheme year 1984‑85 GP‑13 were prepared and signed by un‑authorized persons which evidences that the stocks were despatched on floating GP‑13. (8) He purchased 1097.44 M. Tons wheat from dealers in the garb of growers, thereby causing a loss of Rs.4,389.60 to the State on account of payment of market fee @ Re.0.40 per quintal." After giving the appellant a number of opportunities to appear before him for personal hearing which the appellant did not avail, the respondent No. 2 passed order on 6‑8‑1985 endorsed to the appellant on 22‑8‑1985 dismissing him from service with immediate effect and directing recovery of Government loss pertaining to Purchase Centre 57/5‑L in lump‑sum through all legal coercive means including recovery as arrears of land revenue. On 2‑10‑1985, the appellant filed an appeal before the Director Food, Punjab. As no decision of the appeal was intimated to the appellant even after expiry of 90 days, he riled this appeal before this Tribunal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney and have also perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance.

5. In addition to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant on question of fact, he made the following main submissions on points of law:‑ (i) Although show‑cause notice dated 2‑10‑1984 issued against the appellant contained allegations of dishonesty and corruption, no regular enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed on the basis of summary procedure under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. (ii) Copy of report submitted by the Emergency Squad of Food Directorate Punjab on the basis of which show‑cause notice was issued against the appellant was not given to him in spite of his request in writing. This amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity to show cause and defend himself properly.

6. The learned District Attorney adopted the comments submitted by the respondent No. 2 and submitted that the appellant had been rightly punished and the appeal may be rejected.

7. We have given anxious thought to the submissions made by both sides. On going through the record of the case, we are led to conclude that the proceedings against the appellant have been conducted in violation of the rules of natural justice and the appellant had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In this connection, attention is invited to the following main points:‑ (i) Show‑cause notice dated 2‑10‑1984 issued against the appellant in "Urdu' by District Food Controller, Sahiwal clearly shows that a notice was issued on the basis of a report submitted by Emergency Squad of Director Food, Punjab. Letter No. 1023‑24/EC‑85, dated 21‑1‑1985 from District Food Controller, Sahiwal to the appellant clearly shows that the appellant had requested for a copy of the report on the basis of which he was issued show‑cause notice but copy of this report was denied to him. The afore‑mentioned letter attached with the appeal as Annexure A/4 reads as follows:‑ "Reference this office show‑cause notice No. EC‑84/11425 dated 2‑10‑1984 and No. EC‑84/11426, dated 2‑10‑1984 and your applications dated 15‑10‑1934 and 17‑10‑1984 respectively. As per telephonic advice dated 20‑1‑1985 from Regional Office, Multan, copy of report of the Emergency Squad cannot be given as the same is not an enquiry report as required under the Rules. These are simply observations. You are, therefore, directed to submit your reply to the show‑cause notice within one week positively, failing which it will be presumed that you are hampering the proceedings and in that case ex parte action will be taken." Vide case reported in A I R 1959 All. 47, it was held that non‑supply of Inquiry Officer's report when demanded by the delinquent official constituted denial of reasonable opportunity. Similarly vide case reported in P L D 1978 Lah. 972, it was held that when copy of the preliminary enquiry was not supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner was not possibly aware of grounds on which allegations were made and this omission invalidated the final order of dismissal from service. (ii) The wording of show‑cause notice dated 2‑10‑1984 issued by District Food Controller, Sahiwal clearly showed that 9 serious allegations contained in it involved negligence, dishonesty and corruption. The exact words used in the said show‑cause notice in Urdu are as follows:‑ Vide P L D 1963 Lah. 295 and P L D 1963 S C 400, evidence, oral and documentary should be brought on record in respect of allegations that are not admitted and persons charged should be given an opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses if any, and to produce evidence on this behalf However, no regular enquiry was held against the appellant and he was, therefore, denied an opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses against him and establish his innocence. Against vide P L D 1974 S C 393 Muhammad Siddique Javid Chaudhary v. Government of the Punjab, the Supreme Court of Pakistan had held that a regular enquiry was necessary to establish the truth where allegations of corruption were made against the accused. However in this particular case no regular enquiry was held by the competent authority to establish the truth of allegations against the appellant.

8. Keeping in view the detailed analysis of the case given above, we have come to the conclusion that the proceedings against the appellant were conducted in violation of the rules of natural justice and the rulings of the superior Courts. We therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the appellant from the service. The appellant is reinstated in service and the case is remanded to the competent authority for regular enquiry in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the rulings of the superior Courts. The period between the date of his dismissal and his reinstatement will be decided by the competent authority. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./245/Sr. P Case remanded.