Moazzam Hayat, Member.--With this judgment we shall decide appeals No. 1065 & 1066(R)CS/2010 filed by appellants Muhammad Iqbal and Jamil Ahmed whc were found involved in illegal and immoral activities on 26.05.2009 at 1600 hours as intimated by COD Kala Jhelum. On this charge they were issued notices on 07.10.2009 and 23.12.2009 and were awarded penalty dismissal of service vide order dated 30.01.2010 under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Their departmental appeals were rejected on 15.06.2010. Hence these appeals.
2. It is maintained by the respondents that both the appellants were involved in misconduct, irvolving immoral turpitude, therefore, they were awarded penalty in question after a report was submitted against them by the Court of inquiry. It is also stated that both the appellants had confessed their guilt in the Court of inquiry.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. The law requires that charge levelled against a civil servant in the disciplinary proceedings should be specific and comprehensive. A civil servant must know as to what particular allegation is leveled against him. In the present case, both the appellants were charged for committing illegal/immoral activities. This charge was very vague. The alleged illegal/immoral activity had not been defined. It is stated by the departmental representative that both the appellants were involved in an incident in which a woman had been hired. This explanation given to us by the departmental representative does not meet the ends of justice. The appellants should have been informed of this allegation in the show-cause notice. Specific roles should have been assigned to them. We are of the view that in the charge sheet allegations of general nature were leveled against both the appellants. On these ambiguous allegations no penalty could be imposed upon them.
5. It is submitted by the departmental representative that both the appellants had made confessions before the Court of inquiry. We have seen the so called confessions. Appellant Naeem Iqbal had admitted having dropped a woman on the instructions of some senior. Dropping a woman is per se not sufficient to establish the charge of immoral activity. It is stated that the said appellant had asked the woman to give her mobile number and address. This charge was not accepted by the said appellant. We have inquired from the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether making such an inquiry was an offence involving moral turpitude. His reply is that all depends on the circumstances Linking such an action with morality depends on evidence.
Otherwise this act may be unethical but not immoral. To bring it within the ambit of immorality evidence should have been recorded after framing a definite charge sheet. By his reply the learned counsel for the respondents has indirectly conceded that the appellants were not informed of the specific charges against them. That being the factual position, the entire proceedings were no of legal consequence.
6. The appellants had not made any confession. A confession is made only when a specific charge is levelled. We are constrained to hold that the respondents were not justified in awarding penalty to the appellants on this ground alone that they had confessed.
7. There is yet another aspect of the case. If the appellants had made confession there was no need to hold Court of inquiry. Since this Court was convened it proved that the matter required inquiry. In inquiry the statements of witnesses arc recorded in the presence of the accused officials.
They are given right to cross-examine the witnesses. In the present case, the woman was the most important witness. If her whereabouts were known her statement should have been recorded. In any event, the statements of all the persons familiar with the facts, should have been recorded.
8. According to the departmental representative the appellants are very nasty and cannot be assigned duties in sensitive areas of the respondents. The respondents can very easily avoid posting of the appellants in sensitive areas. We cannot throw away the present appeals on this ground alone that the appellant cannot be posted in the sensitive areas.
9. The upshot of the findings above is that both the appeals are accepted. The impugned orders of dismissal passed against the appellants are set aside. They are reinstated into service. The department may hold" de novo proceedings against them in the light of the observations given by us above. The proceedings may be completed preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of judgment is received in the office of respondents. The payment of back benefits shall depend on the outcome of fresh proceedings.
10.There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.