M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-Mr. Muhammad Anwar, Ex---Registration Clerk has appealed against the order of Secretary, Government of Punjab, Revenue Department dated 24-10-1978 dismissing him from service with immediate effect.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Inspector-General of Registration issued him a show- cause notice on 7-2-76, as a result of which the official was removed from service w. e. f. 25-6-76.
M B R dismissed the appeal on 29-6-77. On Appeal (No. 157/916 of 1977) the Service Tribunal held the I. G. Of Registration to be incompetent as no powers of punishment has been delegated to him.
As a result, the appellant reported for duty on 4-3-78. On 31-5-78 the appellant's re-instatement orders were issued but on the same date a second order dated 31-5-78 bearing No. 1318-ST-I were issued whereby the appellant was suspended with immediate effect. A show-cause notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him was issued under rules 6(3) of E & D Rules, 1975. The following charges were levelled against him :-
(i) While posted as Registration Clerk, Ferozewala in 1976 a number of complaints had been received that you are extremely corrupt and live beyond your ostensible means.
(ii) You were charge-sheeted for gross misconduct and inefficiency in the year 1966.
(iii) That in the year 1970 the I.-G. Registration stopped your one incre--ment with accumulative effect and for the period you remained under suspension you were paid nothing more than what you had already drawn during this period.
These were the same charges which had originally been levelled against the appellant. The appellant requested by telegram and in writing that he may be shown the complaints against him so that he may submit the reply to the allegation but since the last date fixed for the reply was approaching, the appellant submitted his detailed reply on 29-6-1978. He was shown the record on 15-7-1978. The appellant appeared before the Secretary for a personal hearing on 16-9-1978. The Secretary, Revenue Department on 24-9-1978 dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant filed a review petition dated 20-11-1978. The review petition was rejected vide Letter No. 8236-76/ 678-ST, dated 15-3-1979.
3. The order of dismissal is challenged on the grounds :-
(a) that the appellant was not shown the complaints against him ;
(b) that there was no justification for dispensing with the enquiry ;
(c) that the authority passed the impugned order without applying his mind ; and
(d) that on charges Nos. 2 and 3, the appellant had already been punished and therefore they could not form fresh charges.
4. We have seen the record. The appeal is bound to succeed on the short ground that the order of the departmental authority to dispense with the enquiry is not justified. This Tribunal has already ruled at three different occasions that when the charges of corruption against a civil servant are definite in nature and supported by evidence of named persons, the enquiry is essential. Two of the above decisions have been Dost Muhammad v. D. C., Multan etc. (1980 P LC (C. S.) 611) and Muharak Ahmad Malik etc. v. Federation of Pakistan (1980 PLC (C. S.) 418). We accordingly reiterate our views in this case that the allegations against the appellant were entirely oral and were supported by the named persons. Thus there could have been no difficulty in holding enquiry. In our opinion the appellant could be held guilty if he was allowed the opportunity to impeach the testimony of the complainants against him in a proper enquiry. We accordingly direct that the enquiry be held into the allegation No. 1 against the appellant and the case be decided afresh.
5. So far as charges Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, we are of the view that same could not form basis of a fresh charge-sheet as the appellant has already suffered the consequences of the same. In any case the aforesaid two charges cannot validly form a part of the grounds for penalty envisaged in rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Similarly the observation of the departmental authority regarding criminal case registered against the appellant in December 1978 could not form the basis of action against the appellant inasmuch as same did not form part of the show-cause notice served upon the appellant initially by the I. G.
Registration or by the Secretary Revenue/Registration Department, Government of Punjab. Thus it also could not sustain the basis for the order. We accordingly accept the appeal so for the above charges are concerned. In the result the case is remanded to the departmental authority for decision afresh on issue No. 1 in the light of our, directions above.