' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- Appellant Ahm ad Hussain Dar was a Commercial Assistant in the Revenue Office, NanKana Division under Lahore Electric Supply Company Limited. He was served with a letter of explanation dated 8-4-2000 in which it was alleged that he had acquired and possessed property worth lacs of rupees, disproportionate to his known resources of income and that he had purchased movable/immovable property without the permission of the competent Authority. It was also alleged that he was living beyond his ostensible means of income. He was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 15-6-2000. His departmental appeal dated 12- 8-2000 was not responded. It is prayed by him in his present appeal filed under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 that the impugned order be set aside and he be reinstated into service with back-benefits.
2. It is maintained by the appellant that no formal inquiry had been held against him in spite of his request in that behalf. It is further maintained by him that his family had the resources enabling him to purchase and acquire property, movable as well as immovable.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had retired from service after observance of all the legal formalities.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. Very serious charges had been levelled against the appellant but no inquiry was held against him. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that non-holding of inquiry had caused serious prejudice to the appellant. It is an established law that when serious allegation are levelled against a Civil Servant, which are controverted by him, formal inquiry becomes mandatory. In the present case the appellant had made an endeavour to explain his resources. His resources could be determined only through a formal inquiry and not in any other manner. In the circumstances we hold that a proper procedure was not adopted by the respondents in dealing with the appellant.
6. Even otherwise the penalty of compulsory retirement does not reconcile with the serious charges levelled against the appellant. This aspect of the case shall be duly considered by the Competent Authority depending upon the outcome of formal inquiry which is being ordered by us.
7. For the above reasons we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. We direct that a formal inquiry shall be held against the appellant ;n accordance with the rules. The matter shall then be decided by the Competent Authority. The entire process shall be completed within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is received in the office of the respondents.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.