' Zubair Ahmad, ex-Patwari, Tehsil Cantt. Has called in challenge order dated 30-12-2002 passed by Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Lahore Cantt., arraigned as respondent No,3, whereby following the directions of Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, appointment of the appellant as Patwari was cancelled on the ground of securing double domicile certificate having applied in more than one Sub-Division for recruitment as Patwari. His appeal to the respondent No, 1 . Did not meet with any success and was rejected on 31-3-2003 which order has also been assailed in this appeal.
2. Appellant was recommended by the Selection Committee notified by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, on 6-8-2002 for the appointment as Patwari. In pursuance of the recommendations on 30th November, 2002, the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Tehsil Cantt., Lahore, appointed the appellant as i'atwari. A complaint was made that the appellant procured double domicile and applied in more than one Sub-Division for recruitment as Patwari. Senior Member Revenue, Board of Revenue, directed Deputy District Officer (Revenue). Lahore Cantt. To cancel the appointment which he accordingly did and now it is the subject-matter in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was neither served a show- cause notice nor was provided an opportunity of hearing by the authority, therefore, having been condemned unheard, the penalty imposed suffers from an inherent defect which requires reversal.
Learned District Attorney, on the other hand, found it difficult to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant:
4. I have attended to the arguments and perused the record.
5. The appellant was undoubtedly, entitled to a show-cause notice at least and thereafter a hearing was to be provided by the authority. The Departmental Representative on behalf of the respondents has conceded that the file, does not contain any proof that a show-cause notice was served upon the appellant. The order itself shows that unilateral action was taken and the appellant was not heard. In the case of Gohar Masood and others v. Secretary, Health Department and others, reported in 2001 SCM R 1128, it has been ordained that basic requirement of law while proceedings under the disciplinary rules, for any kind of misconduct, is to at least serve the incumbent civil servant with a show-cause notice and then provide him with a hearing. Without resorting to these essentials, the action would be termed as condemning a person unheard, which is a huge violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, neither the authority heard the appellant nor the appellate authority who was directed by the Hon'ble High Court to dispose of the representation, bothered to call the appeHant for hearing to note down his submissions and deal with it through a speaking order. Gross violation of law has been committed. Even if the appellant was a probationer, still the charge was such as could have left a stigma for the rest of his career, therefore, service of show-cause notice and providing hearing by the authority were the bare necessities of law.
6. The upshot of the discussion is that the appeal is accepted. Order dated 30-12-2002 by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Lahore Cantt., and 31-3-2002 by Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, are set aside and quashed. Appellant shall be reinstated in service. However, period between removal from service and reinstatement shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
7. The Department may, if it so desires, proceed against the appellant but strictly in accordance with law as observed in this judgment.