JUDGMENT KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.- This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court announced on 7.12.1999 dismissing six writ petitions including Writ Petition No. 14890/1994 filed by the present appellant.
2. The appellant was working as a Junior Clerk in the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala and was served with four show-cause notices dated 17.1.1993 and 18.1.1993 which show-cause notices were accompanied by separate statements of allegations wherein the appellant had been accused of not having checked and scrutinized certain Admission Forms of certain candidates desirous of appearing in the Intermediate Examination which helped the said candidates to get through the said examination through impersonation whereby confidence of the candidates and the public in the honesty of the Board was shattered.
3.The Authorized Officer further declared through the said-show cause notices that in his view was not necessary to hold a regular inquiry in proof of the allegations and that it had been decided to proceed against him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Consequently the petitioner was called upon to Show cause, within fourteen days of the receipt of the said notices, as to why one or more of the penalties envisaged by Rule 4 of the said Rules of 1975 should not be imposed on him.
4. Through an explanation submitted by the appellant on 23.1.1993, he vehemently denied the veracity of the allegations leveled against him and added that he was the one who had detected at least 12 cases of impersonation in respect of the candidates specified by him and that the proceedings initiated against him were rooted in malice and victimization. As a result of the above proceedings the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 3.5.1993 under Rule 4(b)(iv) of the E&D Rules of 1975 and this entry in the officers of the Board was also banned.
5. The departmental appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed which led him to the Lahore High Court through the above-mentioned Writ Petition No. 14890 of 1994 which petition was dismissed through the above mentioned impugned judgment announced on 7.12.1999. The appellant's petition before this Court bearing CPLA No. 247-L of 2000 was allowed. Hence this appeal.
6. The learned High Court, through its impugned judgment, examined only one legal aspect of the matter i.e. Whether the E&D Rules of 1975 as adopted by the respondent, Board had the status of the statutory rules and consequently vesting rights in the appellant to the protection of the same or whether the relationship of the appellant and the respondent, Board was that of master and servant disentitling the appellant to any protection in the -matter of terms and conditions of his employment. The learned High Court appears to have dealt with this legal aspect at length and to have concluded that the said rules which had been adopted by the Board only through one of its Resolutions could not be held to be statutory rules. Therefore, the appellant was governed by the principle of master and servant as a result whereof his petition was dismissed without even mentioning the merits of the case.
7. We have heard the appellant at some length and have also heard the learned ASC appearing for the respondent-Board and its functionaries. The available record was also examined by us in the light of the submissions made before us.
8. The allegations levelled against the appellant had been vehemently controverted by him through a detailed explanation which he had submitted. The said accusations emanated from the complicated, disputed and controversial facts. The appellant had been denied opportunity to face the evidence available against him and to adduce evidence in disproof of the charges levelled against him. Irrespective of the fact whether the rules in question had or had not the status of statutory rules, it is an admitted fact that it was the Board itself which had elected to deal its employees through the process and the procedure envisaged by the said rules of 1975. Therefore, the respondent-Board could not be permitted to go back on the commitment thus made by it to its employees to treat them, in the disciplinary matters, in the manner prescribed by the said Rules.
Needless to add that the requirement of a regular inquiry and to punish the appellant in a slipshod and summary manner and thereby depriving him of his job, could not be sustained on any principle of equity, just and fair play. It was also the case of the appellant that he had detected and reported about 12 cases of impersonation in respect of which at least four other officials were responsible and he was the only who was picked up and punished for having assisted in the matter of impersonation of candidates and no action whatsoever was initiated or taken against the other employees who were involved in similar acts omission and commission.
9 Having examined all aspects of the matter we are of the view that the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant and the consequent punishment awarded to him could not be sustained under any law and we hold accordingly. -
10. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned High Court and the impugned dismissal of the appellant from service by the respondent-Board are set aside. The respondent, Board is, however, at liberty to proceed against the appellant afresh from the stage of receipt of reply to the show-cause notice issued to the appellant, in accordance with law and the procedure adopted by the Board to deal with its employees in such like matters. We shall expect the Board of conclude these proceedings, if initiated, within three months from today. Since we are permitting the Board to proceed afresh in the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to direct reinstatement of the appellant in service for the time being. If the Board re-commences disciplinary proceedings against the appellant then the matter of his re-instatement shall follow the result of the said proceedings but if the Board elects not to re-commence the said proceedings within one month from today then the appellant shall be re-instated in service with all the back benefits after treating the period in which he had remained out of service as leave of the kind due.
11. The question about the statutory nature or otherwise of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 is left open to be decided in appropriate proceeding if and when brought before this Court.
12. The parties are left to bear their on. Costs.