1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).----By this appeal the appellant, act Ex-Colony Clerk of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner Lodhran, assails the order of respondent No. 1, dated 22nd December 1975, dismissing him. From service under rule 4(b)(iii) of the Punjab civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and the order of respondent No. 2 dated 7th April 1976/23rd April 1976, dismissing his appeal and confirming the order of respondent No. 1. The appellant was charged with the following six charges.
2. The first four charges were the subject matter of the charge-sheet, dated 10th April. 1975. The enquiry was still in progress when on the complaints of Allah Ditta, dated 8 July 1975, 28-8-1975 and 29-9-1975 two more Charges Nos. (v) and (vi) were added against the appellant. The enquiry in relation to first four charges was initiated under West Pakistan Government Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 and was at the stage of reply to the charge-sheet. In the meantime, it was decided to proceed against the appellant under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975 which had also conic into force; on the 12th of March 1975. It may be pertinent to point out here that so far as the first four charges are concerned it is the common case that the same had not been proved as the complainants did not come forth to support the same. The result of the Enquiry Officer's conclusion is available on the record vide enquiry report, dated 22nd March 1976 Annex. `L' at pages 39-41 of the record. Similarly, the case against the appellant under section 161, P. P. C.
3. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 pending with the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan was also dismissed as cancelled on 2nd April 1976 on the recommendations of the Superin--tendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Establishment Multan, dated 3rd March 1976 who declared the case as untraced. For the remaining charges the authorisedth officer namely, A. D. C. (G), Multan decided to proceed under rule 6(2) of the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules of 1975 and he decided not to hold an enquiry and proceeded to serve the appellant straight--away with the show-cause notice, dated 15th October 1975. The appellant in his reply, dated 16th December 1975 denied the charges and pleaded that the same were false and were the result of conspiracy against him as by that time he has been transferred from the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran to Assistant Commissioner, Kabirwala. After granting him personal hearing on the 18th December 1975, the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, as competent authority, decided to impose upon the appellant the major penalty of dismissal from service under rule 4 (b) (iii) of the Punjab Government, Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. An appeal dated 19th June 1976 to the Commissioner against the order of competent authority also failed and was rejected on 7th/23rd April 1976. Hence the present appeal before us. It was filed before us on 4th May 1976. The appellant raised the following contentions in support of this appeal: That the enquiry initiated under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960 should have been concluded under the aforesaid Rules which did not contain any provision for dispensing with the enquiry and the recourse to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 was not permissible and for that reason the proceedings against the appellant are vitiated in entirety. The appellant further argued 'that even according to rule, 6 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 no arbitrary powers were conferred upon the Authorised Officer who was under an obligation to state the reasons for dispensing with the Enquiry and he was to be guided by the interests of justice and the facts and circumstances of the case. According to appellant this aspect concerned for providing reasonable opportunity to defend and thus had to be construed very strictly in favour of the Civil Servants. In this context it was also argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no trace of justification, in the order of the authorised officer for dispensing with the requirements of enquiry.
4. His observations regarding the pendency of another enquiry and criminal case against the appellant was concerned, the same having already been proved to be false by that time. Thus the aforesaid reasons were not available to the Authorised Officer and to that extent he acted contrary to the record. He further complained that the show-cause notice merely proposed the imposition of "a major penalty" was also defective inasmuch as it failed to specify the major penalty with requisite particularity. He also argued that the punishment appeared to have been awarded on the basis of all the six charger, whereas the first four charges admittedly had been disproved and for that reason the order was vitiated in toto. Reliance was placed on the two reported judgments, viz. PLD 1962. Lah. 172 and PLD 1962 Lah. 112 and finally upon the decision of this Tribunal reported as 1973 PLC 361. Lastly tile objection of the learned counsel for the appellant was that after the service of show-cause notice, the case was again sent to the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran and a report was obtained from him which was taken into consideration without disclosing the contents of the same to the appellant which constituted the gross violation of the principles of natural justice. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for the acceptance of this appeal.
5. Mr. A. G. Hamayun, the learned Government Pleader, on his turn stated that so far as the first four charges are concerned the same have not been proved and therefore are not in dispute. He also did not contest that the Criminal case against the appellant has since been cancelled as untraced on the recommendations of the Special Police Establishment. He, however, argued that the Efficiency aid Discipline Rules of 1975 were clearly applicable in this case inasmuch as there was nothing to show that the same were not attracted. He, in particular, pointed out that charges Nos. 5 and 6 emanated from the complaint filed in July, August and September 1975 and were based on the unauthorised preparation of the allotment order and the warrant of possession by the appellant and the illegal gratification charged by him in lieu thereof. Thus all the events constituting the offence took place after the enforcement of the aforesaid Rules. As such there was no substance whatsoever in the contention of the appellant for not applying the rules in question.
6. He further argued that there was ample justification in this case for dispensing with the requirement of enquiry inasmuch as the preparation of the unauthorised warrant of possession and the deposit of the lease money in respect of land allegedly allotted to the complainant by the appellant was based on the documentary evidence which was in the handwriting of the appellant and the authorities were obviously familiar with the hand of the appellant and thus abundant justification for dispensing with the requirements as to enquiry were available. The appellant has been provided adequate opportunity through a show-cause notice dated 15-10-1974 and he has been heard personally and thus no injustice had taken place. The complainant's statement has also been recorded which is clearly in accordance with the rules and in the circum--stances of the case there was no violation of any rule as the appellant has been duly heard.
7. In reply Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, the learned counsel for the appellant reinforced his contention regarding the necessity of holding the enquiry by pointing out that since the first four charges have been proved to be false and the criminal case was also cancelled, therefore, the necessity to hold the enquiry against the appellant was all the more imperative as the remaining charges likewise appeared to be frivolous and baseless and if allowed an opportunity he could have established the same.
8. After hearing both the parties we are clearly of the view that the con--tention of the learned counsel for the appellant as to the application of e the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 had little substance. We fully agree and endorse the contention of the learned Government Pleader that all the relevant events took place after the enforcement of the Rules and the application of the Rules was open to no exception on any ground whatsoever. However, on the other issue as to the necessity of the enquiry we do feel that the grounds disclosed by the Authorised Officer in his order, having already been disproved, were not available. In particular with regard to the charge of corruption against the appellant which was definite in nature and was supported by the evidence of the named persons there could have been no difficulty in holding the enquiry. Moreover tile proof of this fact depended mostly on the oral evidence and could not be established solely from the documentary evidence on record, therefore, in our opinion it was necessary that the same should have been proved by a proper enquiry. We do not see as to how the interest of justice could be served otherwise. We also find a great deal of merit in the contention of the appellant that the result of enquiry about the previous charges and the criminal proceedings against the appellant also lend consider--able force to the arguments of the appellant that the interest of justice rather warranted the enquiry. No doubt the rules conferred discretion upon the Authorised Officer but it was not altogether arbitrary or completely capricious power conferred upon him. He was required to disclose his mind and the reasons for the same, as it otherwise took away the valuable protection available to the defaulter to disprove the charges against him more particularly when the same in most are based on the oral testimony. The contention of the appellant regarding the non-disclosure of the report dated 5th November 1975, sent by the Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran to the competent authority also remained uncontroverted. We do not find any reference or mention about the same in the show-cause notice, dated 15-10-1975. We hold that it will be info the interest of justice to allow an opportunity to the appellant to controvert the contents of the report in question.
9. For the reasons above we are clearly of the view that the Authorised Officer has failed to comply with the requirements of the relevant rules before dispensing with the enquiry. Consequently the order passed by the competent authority could not be sustained. We, therefore accept this appeal and set aside the order passed by the respondent and direct then to proceed in r accordance with law. However, there wilt be no order as to costs.