GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J.-- This writ petition is directed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, whereby orders of respondents passed on 14.7.2003 and 5.3.2004 have been challenged for having been passed without lawful authority.
2. The precise facts forming the background of this petition are that petitioner herein was appointed as Lecturer English in Cadet College Pallandri vide order dated September 7, 1998. It is claimed that petitioner stood confirmed in his appointment vide notification dated 13.3.2000. In view of Rule 10(5) of Rules known as Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 on 12.9.2001, the petitioner on expiry of probation period stood confirmed. It is further claimed that the 'petitioner had performed his duties to the utmost of his capability, efficiency, honesty and devotion, which has been acknowledged by respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 10.8.2001. It is stated that respondent No. 3 nourished a grudge against the petitioner on account of his inability to contribute in the monthly saving fund raised by him without any backing of law and rules. The petitioner requested to refund the amount already contributed through an application on 17.10.2001 and on account of the aforementioned demand a warning was issued to the petitioner on 20.10.2001. The lien of the petitioner was refused to be retained with Cadet College Pallandri and consequently the petitioner could not join in F.G. Inter College Kotli despite selection over there. It is alleged that in January, 2003 respondents initiated process for termination of petitioner's service on the baseless allegation that petition& is a Qadiani. A writ petition was filed before this Court for restraining the respondents to proceed against the petitioner on the ground stated therein.
However, in the comments the respondents undertook not to out the petitioner from service on the basis of his faith. In view of the undertaking and comments the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 12.3.2003 directing therein that the competent authority shall strictly adhere to the relevant rules in case of any disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is also claimed that on the same date an explanation was sought from the petitioner and was also warned to improve his conduct. The petitioner was also issued a show-cause notice by the respondents alongwith the list of allegations. It is stated that the services of the petitioner stood terminated from the College on account of his unsatisfactory service, average grade in ACRs, misconduct and indiscipline attitude, vide order dated 14.7.2003. This order was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court through a writ petition on 29.7.2003. The petition was disposed of on the ground that a review filed on behalf of the petitioner against his termination order is awaiting disposal before the Board of Governors, which was directed to decide the matter within 60 days. The Board of Governors heard the petitioner and vide its order dated 3.6.2004 upheld the decision of termination from service of the petitioner. The above proceedings and orders are the subject-matter of this writ petition. It is alleged that the proceedings have been conducted in utter disregard of the mandatory procedure contained in the relevant service rules. It is also stated that the petitioner has not been provided with an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order and punishment awarded to him couldn't be imposed in view of the provisions contained in Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It is also the case of the petitioner that neither the inquiry has been conducted nor the petitioner has been associated with any such inquiry. The Board of Governors has also not conducted the proceedings in a rightful manner and all the proceedings have been conducted on wrong assumption of facts.
3. The facts stated in the writ petition have been controverted by the respondents by filing separate written statements. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 it is alleged that petitioner was on probation and was not confirmed by'the competent authority, therefore, his termination is not mala fide or without jurisdiction. It is also stated that petitioner was time and again advised to improve his conduct but failed, therefore, his services were terminated. It is also stated that proceedings taken as well as decision made by the respondents are strictly in accordance with the spirit of relevant provisions contained in the rules and no illegally or irregularity has been committed by the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 have filed written statement on the same lines and grounds which have been listed in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, need not be repeated.
4. Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abbasi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, in support of the petition raised following submissions:
(i) that the whole proceedings taken against the petitioner are mala fide, coramnonjudice, perverse and capricious for having been conducted in total disregard of the Cadet College Pallandari/Board Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1996;
(ii) that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of misconduct, disobedience and for being disrespectful. Thus these punishment's conduct be awarded in view of Rule 4(b)(iv) of the said Rules and if allegations are proved, even then the punishment provided under Rule 4(a)
(i) & (ii) read with clause (d) could be imposed;
(iii) that the petitioner has not been provided with the right of hearing before passing the impugned order;
(iv) that the order has been passed on wrong assumption of facts showing the petitioner as a probationer whereas the fact of the matter is that petitioner was appointed on 7.9.1998 and in view of the rules the maximum period required for confirmation in service is 2 years, which stood expired on 7.9.2000, even in case of extension of the probationary period the petitioner stood confirmed on 12.9.2001, therefore, termination of the petitioner is based on speculation;
(v) that the proceedings have not been taken in accordance with the dictates of rules. Neither a copy of the inquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner, nor the petitioner has been heard by the authorities before imposing the alleged penalty and
(vi) that petitioner has been discriminated and has also been denied the right of equality before law and equal protection of law.
The learned Advocate, to support his submission, referred to and relied upon the following cases:
(i) 2002 SCR 146;
(ii) PLD 1981 SC 176;
(iii) 1983 CLC 266;
(iv) PLD 1978 SC (A.J.K.) 37;
(v) PLJ 2001 SC (A.J.K.) 50; (iv) 2003 SCM R 1505;
(vi) 2001 SCR 334 and (viii) 1992 SCR 370.
In a case titled Abdul Haq Mugahl Vs. Muhammad Naseer Usmani and 2 others (2002 SCR 146) it was opined that it is an established principle of law that an act is required to be performed in a particular manner. The act must be performed according to the prescribed manner or not at all.
This view is based on an earlier judgment of the apex Court, reported as PLD 1978 SC (A.J.K.) 37.
5. In the case, titled Syed Mir Muhammad Vs NWFP Government through Chief Secretary (PLD 1981 SC 176) it was opined that rules 5 & 6 implicity require that a copy of inquiry report to the furnished to the accused official to enable him to offer his explanation with regard to adverse findings; if any, recorded against him admit was further opined that such requirement cannot be brushed aside by saying that such as course would amount to serving of a second show cause notice.
6. In the case titled Ch. Munawar Hussain Bhatti Vs. WAPDA & 4 others a similar view was taken and it was opined that appellant has a right to know as to which charge stood proved against him and he could discover this only form the final show-cause which is indispensable legal requirement.
7. In a case titled Govt. Of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Syed Mujahid Hussain Naqvi (PLJ 2001 SC )
A.J.K. 50) it was opined that it is mandatory for Authority to observe principle of natural justice.
Orders of reversion in lower grade or rank and order of dismissal from service are treated major penalties under Civil Servants (Efficiency & Disciplinary), Rules, 1977 and under their provisions; particularity Rule 8 thereof, it is mandatory for an authority to observe principle of natural justice before passing such orders.
8. In a case titled Khlaid Saeed Vs. Shamim Rizwan and others (2003 SCM R 1505) the same principle was reinstated.
9. In Abdul Hameed Siddique's case (2001 SCR 334) it was opined that before awarding the major penalty of removal from service and passing an order for recovery of amount of alleged loss to the department, the authority was bound to provide opportunity of hearing to respondent. It was further opined that proceedings against the respondent have been conducted under the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules in flagrant disregard procedure prescribed in the relevant rules, which illegality has vitiated the whole proceedings.
10. In a ,case titled Hussain Ahmad Islahi Vs. Azad Govt. And others (1992 SCMR 370), the same principle was followed. It was additionally held that appellant was not given an opportunity of personal hearing which was the mandatory requirement and the order of penalty was declared as illegal and invalid.
11. Mr. M. Tabassam Aftab Alvi, the learned Advocate, arguing on behalf of the respondents, referred to the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Governor held on 5.6.2002 & 5.3.2004 and contended that the impugned orders have been culminated from the afore-stated meetings/decision of the Board of Governor, which have not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, petition merits dismissal in views of law laid down in 1992 SCR 214, 1997 SCR 26, 1996 SCR 171 and 2001 SCR 179. The learned Advocate further argued that as the petitioner was on probation, therefore, no notice was necessary to him as is visualized by the Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1996. Reliance was placed on 1996 SCMT 770, 1999 SCMR 123, PLD 1974 SC 393 and PLD 1968 SC
47. It was also argued that neither the rules nor the pleadings, therefore, the petitioner is estopped to raise any objection.
12. In the case titled Mirza Lal Hussain Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others (1992 SCR 214) it was opined that it is not a universal rule which may be necessarily applied in every case without regard to the consequence. While this rule would apply to cases where a person who is adversely affected by such an order does not come to know of its existence and has had no occasion to challenge the order there is no warrant for the conclusion that a vide order should be left unchallenged. This principle was reiterated in Muhammad Naseer Jahangiri's case (1997 SCR 26) and Ch. Muhammad Zaman's case (1996 SCR 171). This principle was also followed in Muhammad Ilyas Khan's case (2001 SCR 179). The other authorities cited by the learned Advocate as 1992 SCMR 770, 1989 SCMR 123, PLD 1974 SC 393 and PLD 1968 SC 47 in support of the argument that service of a probationer can be dispensed with without any Show-Cause Notice. The pages referred to and relied upon are not correct, therefore, I am unable to discuss the authorities in detail.
13. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is an admitted position that the service of the petitioner has been regulated by the rules know as Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996 and Cadet College Pallandri/Board of Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1996. For proper appreciation of the controversy in light of the respective arguments of the learned Advocates for the parties the relevant provisions contained in both the rules are reproduced as under: Cadet College Pallandri (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996.
"10 PROBATION AND CONFIRMATION
(1) A person appointed by initial recruitment to a substantive post shall remain on probation for a period of two years. A person promoted from a lower post to higher post shall remain on probation for a period of one year.
(2) A person appointed to a substantive post/promoted to a higher post shall ordinarily be confirmed in that post and pay scale on the satisfactory completion of the probationary period.
(3) The Appointing Authority .May permit a period of officiating appointment ad-hoc appointment or contractual appointment on an equivalent or a higher post to be counted towards the probationary period for The purpose of confirmation on substantive post on which the employee holds a lien.
(4) On or before the completion of the probation period, or the extended probationary period, as the case may be, the Appointing Authority may, if in the opinion of the said authority the work and conduct of the employee have not been satisfactory, dispense with the services of the employee, provided that the employee has been given a reasonable opportunity to Show-Cause against such action.
(5) On the expiry of the period of probation, the employee shall be confirmed if found suitable or, the period of his probation may be extended for a further period not exceeding half of the period of probation. Before the completion of the extended period of- probation, the Appointing Authority shall record or order, either confirming the probationer from such date as the authority may deem fir or discharging him. If the services of the employee are not terminated before the expiry of the prescribed extended probationary period, he shall automatically stand confirmed in post on the expiry of that period.
(6) In case of confirmed College/Board employee who is promoted to a higher post, the probationary period shall be one year. 'In the event of his being found unfit for the higher post, he may be reverted to his substantive post during the probation period, or his probation period extended further not beyond the period of six months. If such reversion order is not passed during the probation period/extended probation period, he shall automatically stand confirmed in the higher post."
Cadet College Pallandri/Board Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1996 "3. GROUND FOR PENALTIES.
Where a College/Board employee, in the opinion of authority,
(a) is inefficient, or has ceased to be efficient, whether by reasons of infirmity of mind or body, or otherwise, and is not likely to recover his efficiency; or
(b) is guilty of misconduct; or
(c) is corrupt, or may reasonably be considered corrupt because:
(i) he is or any of his dependents of any other person through him on his behalf is in possession (for which he cannot reasonably account) of pecuniary resources or of property misappropriate to his known source of income; or
(ii) he has assumed a style of living beyond his ostensible means, or
(d) is engaged or is reasonably suspected for being engaged, in subversive activities, or is reasonably suspected of being associated with others engaged in subversive activities, and whose retention in service is, therefore, considered prejudiced to national security, the authority may subject to the provision of sub rule (4) (d) impose on him one or more penalties.
4. PENALTIES.
The following are the minor penalties and major 712 Pakistan penalties namely:
(a) Minor Penalties:
(i) Censure.
(ii) The withholding of increment or promotion, for specific period; stoppage at efficiency bar for specific period.
(b) Major Penalties:
(i) recovery from pay of the whole or any part of any pecuniary loss caused to the college by negligence or breach of order,
(ii) reduction to a lower post or pay scale, or to a lower stage in a pay scale. But an employee cannot be reduced lower than the post or scale on which he was initially recruited;
(iii) Compulsory retirement.
(iv) Removal/termination from service.
(v) Dismissal from service.
(c) Removal from service does not, but dismissal from service does, disqualify from future employment.
(d) For misconduct any penalty in sub-rule (a) may be imposed, but the penalties to be ordinarily imposed for inefficiency shall be these set out in clause (ii) of sub-rule (a) and (i) (ii) or (iii) of sub rule (b), and for corruption or subversion these set out in clauses (iii) iv) or (v) of sub-rule (b)
(e) No authority subordinate to that by which a college /Board employee was appointed shall be competent to impose on him any penalty set out in clauses (ii), (iii) (iv) (v) of sub-rule (b) of rule- 4.
5. : INQU IRY PROCEDURE Inquiry procedure in cases of subversion:
(a) when a college/Board employee is to be proceeded against under clause (d) of Rule 3, the authority:
(i) may be order in writing. Require the college/Board employee concerned to proceed on such leave as may be admissible to him and from such date as may be specified in the order;
(ii) shall follow the procedure laid down in sub-rule (e) of rule 6 except in cases where the Chairman/Principal has decided that it would be prejudicial to the security of Pakistan/Azad Jammu & Kashmir or the person to be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken with regard to him.
'(b) In case where it has been decided to deny opportunity of showing cause as per sub-rule .A(ii).
(I) the accused shall, by order in writing be informed of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him giving grounds of that action.
(ii) The Chairman shall appoint an inquiry officer constitute an Inquiry Committee consisting of:
(a) Three members of the Board in case of Officers appointed by their Board.
(b) A member of the Board and two senior members of the college staff in case of other staff. The Inquiry Officer or the committee will probe in the charge and will submit its findings to the Chairman.
(iii) The Chairman shall not be required to consult the Board before passing such orders on the findings as he may think fit.
(c) In case of any ambiguity these rules arises the Law/S&GAD Department of the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be consulted and its opinion obtained, before starting the proceedings,
(d) All proceedings in case of subversion shall be secret and no information relating to such proceedings shall be disclosed to any unauthorized person.
INQU IRY PROCEDURE IN CASE OF INEFFICIENCY MISCONDCUT & CORRUPTION:
(a) When a College/Board employee is to be proceeded against under clause (a), (b) or (c) of rule 3, the procedure in the following sub-rules shall be observed:
(b) The authority may, if the thinks fit, appoint an officer of the college to which the college employee belongs to examine and report on the allegation against him to enable the authority to decide whether a formal inquiry should be held.
(c) If the authority decide that a formal inquiry should be held it shall decide further whether the llegations, if established, would call for a minor a major penalty.
(i) In cases calling for a minor penalty, the authority of such officer as may be appointed by it in that behalf, shall frame a charge and in making it known to the accused shall call upon him to answer it within a specified time, which shall not be less than seven days nor more than fourteen days, and to state, together with his answer, whether he desires to be heard in person or to lead evidence in defence.
(ii) On receiving the answer, the authority, or the said officer shall if satisfied that there is a prima facie case, and if the alleged accused has so desired, give him the opportunity to be heard in person and to lead evidence in defence, provided that the authority or the said officer may for reasons to be recorded, refuse to call a particular witness or to summon or admit particular evidence.
(iii) If the alleged accused fails to answer within the specified time or having from the proceedings, the authority or the said officer may proceed with the inquiry and record findings.
In case calling for a major penalty the authority .Having power to impose the penalty shall frame a charge, communicate it to the accused together with a statement of the allegation on which it is based and of any other circumstances which the authority proposes to take into consideration when passing order on the case.
(ii) The authority shall require the alleged accused, within a responsible time, which shall not be less than seven days nor more than fourteen days, from the day the charge has been communicated to him, to put in a written defence, stating at the same time whether he desires to be heard in person.
(iii) If the accused so desires, or if the authority concerned so directs, an Inquiry Officer to be appointed under rules-5 shall held an oral inquiry at which oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the accused shall be entitled to cross-examine the witness against him to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called for the defence as he may wish, provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a particular witness or to summon or admit particular evidence.
(iv) The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and the Inquiry Officer's report of his findings and the grounds therefore.
(v) When the authority, having considered the report, has arrived at a provisional conclusion as to the penalty to be imposed, the accused and supply him with a copy of the report and call upon him to show cause within a reasonable time, which shall not be less than seven days and not more than fourteen days, why the penalty proposed should not be imposed. The authority shall take into consideration any cause shown by the accused before passing orders.
(f) Nothing in the preceding sub-rules shall apply:
(i) Where the accused is dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to a fine or of sentence of imprisonment; or
(ii) Where the authority competent to dismiss or remove a person or to .Reduce him in rank is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded by that authority, it is not reasonably practicable to give the accused an opportunity of showing cause."
14. A perusal of the provisions contained in Efficiency and Discipline Rules reproduced herein above reveals that for proceedings against an employee of the College or the Board the first step has to be taken by the authority under clause
(a) of Rule 5 that requires the College/Board employee concerned to proceed on such leave as may be admissible to him and from such date as may be specified in the order. Under Rule 5(b) the accused shall, by order in writing, be informed of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him giving grounds of that action. It is also postulated by the rules that the Chairman shall appoint an Inquiry Officer or constitute an Inquiry Committee as is visualized by Rule 5(b) (i) & (ii). For the inquiry the procedure laid down in Rule 6 has strictly to be observed. The basic and elementary requirement of Rule 6 is that the authority may, if he thinks fit, appoint an officer of the college to which the college employee belongs to examine and report on the allegation against him to enable the authority to decide whether a formal inquiry should be held. This clause of Rule 6 only visualize to a preliminary or facts finding inquiry on the basis of which the authority has to make up mind for further proceedings. Under Rule 6(c) on the basis of material the authority will decide that whether a formal inquiry should be held or not? The authority shall also decide as to whether the allegations, if established, would call for a minor or a major penalty. Under clause (d) of rule 6 in cases calling for a minor penalty the authority or its delegate shall frame the charge in making it known to the accused and shall call upon him to answer the authority has to further judge and satisfy itself that whether there is a prima facie case against the accused and on affirmative confusion the accused shall be given an opportunity to be heard in person and defence. Under clause (e) sub-clause (i) in cases calling for a major penalty the charge has to be framed and communicated to the accused together with a statement of the allegation. After receiving the written defence of the accused the authority shall held an inquiry. Under sub-clause (v) of the said clause the authority after provisional conclusion about awarding the penalty shall supply the accused a copy of the report and call upon him to show cause within a reasonable time that as to why the penalty proposed may not be imposed. These rules are mandatory and the provisions contained in the rules have to be strictly followed, failing which the whole proceedings stand vitiated. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that inquiry has not been conducted in light of the foregoing provisions is supported by the record and the allegation that petitioner has neither been supplied with a copy of the report nor has been heard, is also proved from the record. The rule of law laid down in the authorities referred to and relied upon by Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abbasi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, are fully attracted in the case.
In Muhammad Shafique Mughal's case (1996 SCR 127) the apex Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir considered the scope of Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The allegation against the civil servants, though, was of embezzlement but the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal was challenged on the ground that whole inquiry has been conducted in total disregarded of Rule 6 of the said Rules. The apex Court has been pleased to observe that the inquiry officer is like a Judge and cannot play the role of a prosecutor. It was further opined by the apex Court that it is not permissible for him to fish out a case against the accused civil servant. The relevant observation of the Court has been recorded in para 5 of the report, which is reproduced as under:-- "5. It may be noticed that when regular inquiry is being held against a Civil Servant sub-rule (3) provides that the inquiry officer shall inquire into the charge and may examine such oral or documentary evidence as may be considered necessary. The sub-rule also provides that the accused shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses against him. It follows that in sub-rule (3) there are four basic requirements which have to be fulfilled. Firstly that the Inquiry Officer has to be inquired into the charge which means that he is to hold an inquiry . The second requirement is that oral or documentary evidence has to be examined in support of the charge. The third requirement is that the accused has to be given an opportunity to produce necessary evidence in his defence. It is significant that while referring to civil servant who is being proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules the word "accused!' has been used which indicates that the proceedings conducted by the inquiry officer are akin to a criminal trial:
15. The question of hearing of the petitioner is also missing in this case and has rightly been contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the principle of natural justice has been violated by the respondents. In Abdul Hameed Siddique's case (supra) the apex Court at page 343 of the report observed that the authority was bound to provide hearing to the respondent.
Although there is presumption of regularity attached to all the official acts unless the presumption is rebutted but in the instant case there is nothing brought on the record showing that respondent was given hearing before passing the impugned order against him. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Judges that mere observation that the respondent was heard, without any further details of such hearing or plea taken by him doesn't satisfy our conscious that in fact he was heard within the spirit of the relevant provisions. Thus the conclusion is that if the accused civil servant/employee is charged with misconduct which could not be proved without holding of regular inquiry the removal or dismissal of such a servant on the basis of summary inquiry is not sustainable in law. It is a celebrated principle of law that things must be done in the prescribed manner or not at all. Nobody can be allowed to contravene, throw away or violate the statute or the rules made thereunder in the name of discipline. It is most unfortunate and has been noticed in various cases that some high ranking officers of certain departments are ignorant of the procedure prescribed for the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It may be observed that performance of duties in an Islamic State is a trust and the duties should. Be performed in transparent manner. The non-adherence and disrespect to the Government and semi-Government institutions on one hand and financial loss to such institutions on the other. The contention of the learned Advocate that punishment of major penalty could not be awarded under the rules has force and is backed by the rules. The petitioner was a confirmed employee and on the aforesaid allegations he could not be removed from service and major penalty could not be imposed against him as is visualized by the rules. Discriminatory treatment with the petitioner is also noticed from the record. The contention of counsel for the respondents that the orders of the Board of Governors have not been challenged is misconceived for the reasons that these orders have not been notified nor the petitioner was conveyed any adverse remarks in ACR. The requirement of rules to this extent has also been violated. The other contention of the learned counsel that under the general conditions of service rules the service of the petitioner could be dispensed with without any notice is also misconceived for the reason that the petitioner has been proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the petitioner has been removed from service under the Board of Governors/Cadet College Pallandari (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1996. These rules, too, require the hearing of the party against whom some adverse action has to be taken. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not relevant, hence need not be discussed.
Before parting with the case I would like to quote a passage from Mr. Justice M.R. Kiani's address to Law College, Lahore on the 1st March, 1958 (PLJ 2003 Magazine Section 311). While commenting on the question of throwing a Government servant out of service in slip- shied, whimsical and arbitrary manner. His lordship observed: "All that we tell the Government departments is that if you want to dismiss a man, dismiss him by all means, but let his funeral be attended with proper formality. Give him a chance; give him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and then do as you like. We do not interfere with the opinions of these officers, so long as they are based on some material, I must say that more often than not the High Court is on the side of the goonda, the corrupt officials, the inefficient official, but even the goonda is entitled to the protection of law. Recently we interfered in a case where an inquiry had been conducted in an atmosphere which could cause apprehension to the accused officer that the enquiring officer might be influenced by his superior. What we want is that every body should have a feeling of security, a feeling that nothing will be done to him in bad faith or capriciously or arbitrarily."
16. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition is accepted and proceedings conducted and orders of removal of the petitioner dated 14.7.2003 and 5.3.2004 are hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and are of no legal effect. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. The question of back benefit and other emoluments shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.