1. FAKHRUDDFN G. EBRAHIM, J.--This appeal under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which calls into question an order made by the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 11-8-1977 by which the appeal of the appellant against the order of her removal from service by the respondent-Government was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was employed as Lecturer in Lahore College for Women. It is alleged that on 20-1-1977 there was an incident in the College giving rise to a students' demand for removal of the appellant from service as she along with some other persons bad allegedly taken, some girl students of the College to some undesirable places. This led to issuance of a show-cause notice to the appellant on January 24, 1977 in which it was alleged that the appellant had been exerting influence on the young and impressionable students of the College for immoral purposes and that she has been taking out the students to certain undesirable places for immoral acts. The appellant was accordingly called upon to show cause within 7 days why she should not be removed from service for misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant in her reply (submitted to the Education Secretary) denied the allegations and demanded a formal inquiry in the matter so that she may be able to cross-examine her detractors. On 3-2-1977 the - Education Secretary heard the appellant in person but not being satisfied with her explanation ordered her removal from service which order was challenged before the Service Tribunal by way of an appeal, which was dismissed in limine.
3. In seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Service Tribunal it was contended that the appellant could not have been dismissed from service without a formal inquiry which contention was repelled on the ground that it was open to the authorised officer not to have an inquiry conducted under rule 6 of Efficiency and Discipline Rules which rule reads as follows :- "6. Tnquiry procedure to be observed by the Authorised Officer. The following procedure shall be observed by the authorised officer when a civil servant is proceeded against under these rules"
(1) In case where a civil servant is accused of subversion, corruption or misconduct, the Authorised 0ffcer may require him to proceed on leave, if due, or, with the approval of the authority, suspend him, provided that any continuation of such leave or suspension shall require approval of the authority after every three months.
(2) The Authorised Officer shall decide whether in the light of facts of the case or the interests of justice an inquiry should be conducted through an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee. If he so decides, he shall appoint an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee consisting of two or more persons who or one of whom shall be of the rank senior to the accused or all of the co-accused and the procedure indicated in rules 7 and 8 shall apply.
4. If the Authorised Officer decides that it is not necessary to have inquiry conducted through an Inquiry 0111c-.r or Inquiry Committee. He shall-
(a) by order, in writing, inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the ground of action ; and
(b) give him reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action Provided that no such opportunity shall be given where the authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of Pakistan or any part thereof it is not expedient to give such opportunity.
5. On receipt of the explanation of the accused, if any, tile authorized officer shall determine whether the charge has been proved. If it is proposed to impose a minor penalty he shall pass orders accordingly. If it is proposed to impose a major penalty he shall forward the case to the authority along with the explanation of the accused and his own recommendations regarding the penalty to be imposed."
6. Leave was however granted by this Court to consider the question whether the show-cause notice in this case was vague and lacking in particulars and secondly that the Authorised Officer in the present case, namely, the Education Secretary had failed to submit the appellant's case to the A Authority as required by sub-rule (4) of rule 6 and he had thus contravened the provisions of rule 8 under which the Authority alone has been given the power to pass an order of removal of the appellant from service and that too after affording her an opportunity of being heard in person.
7. Maulvi Sirajul Haq, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the two contentions raised on which this Court granted leave as aforesaid, namely, that the charge-sheet was vague and lacking in particulars which deprived the appellant of an opportunity to adequately answer the same and secondly that the appellant's case was not referred to the authority under rule 8 of (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules for admittedly she was only heard by the Education Secretary, is the authorised officer and the papers were never sent to the authority contemplated by the said rule which was, it is alleged, in the case of the appellant is the Governor of Punjab. The first contention has no merit.
8. The allegations made against the appellant were such that is required extreme caution in wording the show-cause notice for otherwise E it was bound to affect the reputation and good name of not only the College institution but also its students. In the nature of things, it was not possible to give to the appellant the details of the allegations against her. The allegations contained in the show- cause notice were in the circumstances sufficient in so far as the appellant was concerned to enable her to make an effective representation- against the same. Whether or not in a given case a show-cause notice is not adequate to enable a person to make an effective representation against it will depend upon the facts of each case. . In the present case we are satisfied that the allegations against the appellant were such that the lack of its particulars did not prejudice the appellant particularly in the context of the further requirement of the law that she was to be given a personal bearing. This personal hearing was given and it is significant that the appellant did not make may grievance that the show cause notice given to her was vague or inadequate. In fact, at this hearing, she merely denied the incident in which she was involved and contended herself by saying that she was a victim of party politics in the College.
9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant's case was never referred to the authority contemplated by rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 was premised on the assumption that this authority was the Governor of the C Province, as the appellant was a Grade 17 Officer. The Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975 define the word "authority" to mean the Government or an officer or authority designated by it to exercise the powers of the authority under these Rules. Under the revised schedule annexed to the West Pakistan Education Department Delegation of Power Rules, 1962, the competent authority to dismiss the appellant, a lecturer in a Government College, is the government. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Government means the Governor and admittedly the order of dismissal in the present case was made by the Education Secretary, who was, therefore, not the competent authority under rule 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1975.
10. The contention is without force, for' it overlooks the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 1974.
11. Under rule 12 (1) orders in relation to matters enumerated in Part A of Schedule III are not to be issued without the approval of the Governor, and the dismissal of a person such as the appellant is not one of the enumerated matters. On the other hand, rule 3 (3) of these Rules provides that the business of the Government is to be distributed among several departments, Education Department being one of them, and rule 9 (c) provides that the Education Secretary shall be the official Head of the Department and responsible for its efficient administration and discipline and for the proper conduct of business assigned to the Department under rule 3. Thus the action against the appellant was taken under rule 9 by a competent authority.
12. This appeal is, therefore, without any merit and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.