M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-----In this case the appellant an ex-Drug Inspector of the Provincial Health Department was served with a show-cause notice dated 30th April, 1977 on the following allegations :-
(i) Assumed a style of living including maintenance of a Car unauthorisedly, beyond your ostensible means ; and
(ii) A persistent reputation of being corrupt.
2. In the show-cause notice, the punishment of a major penalty under rule 4 (b) (iii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 was proposed. Simultaneously, the appellant was suspended from service. Dr. Elahi Bakhsh Soomro, the then Director, Health Services Punjab, Lahore, after granting the personal hearing to the appellant on 21st August, 1977, removed the appellant from service on the same date. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the Government which was also rejected on 29th September, 1977. The order was conveyed to him by the Director, Health Services, Punjab, vide latter dated 26th December, 1977. The present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 25th January, 1978. The appellant submitted that he had the misfortune to get hold of some medicines from M/s. Spencers & Co. Who are Distribution Agents of M/s. Abbott Laboratories (Pakistan Ltd.), manufacturers of drugs under section 8 of the Drug Act, 1976. According to the appellant Mr. Munir B. Shaikh, the real brother of the then Director- General Health, Government of Pakistan, Dr. Naseer A. Sheikh, was the General Manager of M/s. Spencer & Co. The appellant submitted that on 7th April, 1977 he was approached by Mr. Nasir Mahmood, the Marketing Director of M/s. Spencer & Co and Mr. Salim Riaz, Quality Assurance Manager of the aforesaid firm on 13th April, 1977 to withdraw the case against them failing which he was likely to face dire consequences. After the receipt of the report the matter was brought in writing ; to the notice of the Director, Health Services, Punjab on 25th April, 1977 and to the Chief Minister, Punjab on 26th April, 1977. The appellant expressed serious apprehension that since Mr. Naseer A. Sheikh, was a very powerful person in the Central Government, he (the appellant) was likely to be victimised at their hands as according to him he had no order to comply with the wishes of M/s. Spencer & Co. And he was not going to withdraw the case. According to the appellant, his apprehensions came true when he was suspended from service and simultaneously served with a Show-Cause Notice on 30th April, 1977. Eventually the appellant was removed from service on 31st August, 1977. He submitted that no details supporting the allegations were supplied to him nor any evidence was available on the record to substantiate the charges against him. Thus he could not be penalised for the same. As regards the maintenance of Car, the appellant submitted that the car belonged to his father who was holding substantial agricultural land in Sheikhupura Distt. And he had only used the same in the official duties to claim T. A. Which was permissible under the T. A. Rules, applicable to the appellant before 1971. According to the definition of `personal car', the car owned by the father was included in the definition. But subsequently the definition of the `personal car' was amended so as to exclude the car owner by the father, but still a car could be used by the appellant which did not exclude the car owned by a close relative of the civil servant. But in any case, he did not maintain a car of his own and if he claimed any T. A. On the basis of the same the same was never made a part of the charge and as such he could not be punished on that account. Lastly the contention of the appellant was that in any case his case called for an enquiry into the matter, which the department failed to conduct the same. The department in reply relied upon the bundle of complaints received against the appellant and a list of 12 complaints was placed before us to support the allegations as there were persistent complaints of corruption against the appellant. The department thus pressed for the rejection of this appeal.
3. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, we find that the complaints against the appellants were lying with the office of the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Health Department. In any case, none of the complaints was examined in this case nor the appellant had been allowed any opportunity to test the veracity of such complaints. In our opinion, the complaints as such could not furnish a valid basis to sustain action against the appellant unless the complaints in question were examined in the presence of the appellant and he had been allowed an opportunity to cross-examining them. The Department has not been able to A controvert satisfactorily the contention of the appellant that due opportunity to defend himself had been denied to him. There was some substance in the contention of the appellant that even list of these com--plaints was never supplied to the appellant and the mere allegations, were served upon him which were bald of any details. In our view the complaints in question could not be used against the appellant unless he has been allowed an opportunity to disprove the same. We accordingly accept this appeal and remand the case to the department for fresh pro--ceedings and direct that the allegations may be enquired into by a proper enquiry and the liability of the appellant be determined accordingly. As regards the allegations of the appellant regarding victimization he should raise the same before the department who will adjudicate upon the same on merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.