' JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN.---Appellant Mir Muhammad, Attendance Officer, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, was on account of misconduct and indiscipline, placed under suspension by order dated 15-9-2000. He was also charge-sheeted on 20-10-2000, as under:-- "1. That according to the report of Director Planning and Development that you came to see Mr. Shah Muhammad Abbasi, and also been searching the papers and files of the Director Planning Office.
2. That you have also been previously issued warning in pursuance of Syndicate Resolution No.4 dated 4-7-1992 in which you were directed to behave properly with your superiors in future, maintain office decorum and discipline, but you did not care as yet".
' In his reply, appellant denied the allegations and prayed for withdrawal of Charge-sheet. Initially, Mr. Noor Muhammad Memon, Director, Institute of Education, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against appellant. Thereafter Mr. K.D. Soomro, Senior Professor of the University was nominated as Enquiry Officer. However, appellant refused to appear before both these Enquiry Officers, cm the plea that Vice-Chancellor of the University (Mr. A.R. Malik) being personally prejudiced and biased against him, therefore, he would not get justice from the Enquiry Officers directly serving under the control of the Vice-Chancellor. Again, M/s. Haji Amber Abbas Soomro, Member Syndicate of the University and Muhammad Latif Virk, Advisor (A&C), University Grants Commission, were appointed as Enquiry Officers as per Resolution No.11 of the Syndicate. Mr. Muhammad Latif Virk, due to his official engagements was not in a position to conduct enquiry. The matter then was again referred to the Syndicate and as per Resolution No.39 (A), an Enquiry Committee comprising M/s. Prof. Rasool Bux Shaikh, Dean Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, Prof. Saleem-ul-Haq Abbasi, Principal, Government Mumtaz College, Khairpur/Member Syndicate and Haji Amber Abbas Soomro, Member Syndicate, was appointed to conduct enquiry against the appellant. The Enquiry Committee called the appellant to appear before it for the purpose of recording his statement, firstly on 12-11-2001, thereafter on 22-12-2001, 7- 1-2002 and lastly on 12-1-2002, but appellant chose to remain absent. The Committee, therefore, unanimously recommended that appellant's case may be placed before the Syndicate for further necessary action as per E&D Rules according to the statutes mentioned in the University Code. The matter was then placed before the Syndicate and vide Resolution No.11(A), dated 26-2-2002 it was unanimously resolved by the Syndicate that major ,penalty be imposed upon appellant on committing gross misconduct, indiscipline, inefficiency and reprehensible service career as provided under section 5(b)(iii) of Efficiency and Discipline Statutes, 1987. Ultimately, by order dated 27-3-2002, the services of appellant were terminated. Being aggrieved by said order, appellant preferred departmental appeal to the Governor of Sindh/Chancellor of the University on 4-4-2002, and on getting no response within stipulated period of 90 days, he through the instant appeal approached this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that no regular enquiry was conducted in to the allegations levelled against the appellant and that no evidence was recorded to arrive at a proper conclusion, thus the principles of natural justice were violated. Further, he submitted that the Enquiry Committee in its report did not hold the appellant guilty of the charges, therefore, the order impugned terminating appellant's services is bad in law and may be set aside. He suggested that matter maybe remanded to the University. For conducting regular enquiry in accordance with law. He also stated that two of the officers appointed earlier to conduct enquiry against the appellant are at present not in service, therefore, the Syndicate of the University may be directed to nominate some other impartial and independent persons/ officers to probe the charges against the appellant.
3. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that full and fair chance was provided to the appellant to defend himself but he deliberately avoided to participate in the enquiry proceedings, as such, the Enquiry Committee had left with no other alternate but to submit its recommendations. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity was committed by the Committee. He urged that four Enquiry Committees one after the other, were nominated to conduct enquiry, but appellant always raised frivolous objections to the integrity and impartiality of the members of the Enquiry Committee and thus hampered the enquiry proceedings by refusing to participate in the same. Therefore, in view of stubborn attitude of the appellant, the Enquiry Committee had rightly proceeded with the proceedings ex parte and submitted its report to the Syndicate.
4. There is no denying the fact that appellant was called by the Enquiry Committee four times, but appellant never appeared before the same. In such a situation, the Enquiry Committee had to administer a warning to the appellant and after recording a finding to that effect, had to proceed with the Enquiry ex parte by recording the statements of witnesses in support of the charge(s) levelled against the appellant and after evaluating and assessing the same, the Committee was supposed to determine the guilt or otherwise of the appellant and submit its recommendations to the Syndicate for further needful. However, in the instant case, neither any warning was administered to the appellant, nor the statements of witnesses were recorded, nor the Committee had determined the guilt of the appellant but as it appears from the perusal of the report, the Committee had simply referred the matter to the Syndicate for further necessary action.
5. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion to remand the matter for initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, without touching the merits of the case, the matter is remanded to Respondent No.2 to place before the Syndicate for nomination of the new Enquiry Committee (as two of the members of the earlier committee are no more in service) comprising of independent and impartial officers to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against, the appellant purely in accordance with law after providing every reasonable opportunity to appellant to defend himself. Meanwhile, appellant be reinstated in service to clothe him with the status of University employee. He shall, however, remain under suspension, as he was at the time of passing of impugned termination order, during enquiry proceedings. The intervening period shall follow the outcome of fresh disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry so commenced shall be completed as early as possible preferably within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Announced in open Court.