Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Manzoor Ahmed, Patwari (Revenue), in the Islamabad Capital Territory, was proceeded against under the Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 and was awarded penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 17.08.2011. His departmental appeal dated 29.08.2011 was not responded. Hence this appeal.
2. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 30.8.2011. It was alleged therein that he had been submitting applications against senior officers to the Chief Commissioner Islamabad Capital Territory. The other allegation against him was of instigating his colleagues to make protest against his seniors. Mrs. Seemab Shaukat, W/o Shaukat Masood had submitted a complaint against him that he was not issuing the fard of her land. All these charges were proved in the fact finding inquiry conducted by Assistant Commissioner, Saddar. Mr. Farasat Ali, Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue issued the aforementioned notice and with the approval of the Chief Commissioner, the competent authority, awarded him the penalty of compulsory retirement.
3. The respondents have maintained that the appellant was dealt with strictly in accordance with rules since the charges against him were proved in the inquiry conducted by Assistant Commissioner, Saddar.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The Assistant Commissioner, Saddar had definitely made inquires into the aforementioned allegations levelled against the appellant but these inquiries were just for collection of facts. There were actually fact finding inquiries. The law required a full-fledged inquiry against the appellant in view of the gravity of the charges levelled against him. A Fact Finding Inquiry can never be a substitute of a regular inquiry. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the appellant was condemned without a regular inquiry.
6. We, however, do not find force in this argument of the appellant that a proper charge was not issued to him. We have seen the show-cause notice. It contains the charges levelled against the appellant. Under law this show-cause notice was correctly treated as charge sheet. The argument of the appellant in that regard is repelled.
7. The admitted position is that the appellant was proceeded against under the Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. Under these rules the competent authority appoints an authorized officer, who in turn, appoints an inquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer submits his report to the authorized officer. The authorized officer can award minor penalty to the accused civil servant after giving him a show- cause notice and hearing him. If his findings are for a major penalty, he recommends the case to the competent authority. It is then for the competent authority to issue a final show-cause notice to the civil servant and award him penalty or exonerate him after giving him personal hearing. In appropriate cases the appointment of an authorized officer can be dispensed with but for that reasons have to be recorded. In this case this procedure had never been adopted. Thus a serious illegality had been committed by the respondents, causing serious prejudice to the appellant.
8. A penal order has to be passed by the competent authority himself. It cannot be passed by his subordinate, even with his approval. In this case, the impugned order should have been passed by the competent authority even and not on his behalf and with his approval by a subordinate.
9. The result of the findings above is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant is set aside. He is reinstated into service. The competent authority may not give him any sensitive assignment. The de novo proceedings, in the light of observation given above, 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.