Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Muhammad Latif, Postmaster, Kutchery Post Office, Sialkot was proceeded against under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and was awarded penalty of Rs, 663,490/-. This penalty was challenged by him in the FST by filing Appeal No, 920(R)CS/2006. It was decided on 29.01.2011 the matter was remanded to the respondents. The reason for the remand of the case was that Enquiry Officer had not made any recommendation as to the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the appellant. It transpires from the record that in the de novo proceedings the Enquiry Officer recommended the penalty of censure vide his order dated 30.03.2011. The competent authority did not accept his recommendation and again awarded him the penalty of recovery of Rs,663,490/- vide order dated 16.05.2011. His departmental appeal dated 30.05.2011 was-not responded.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had been given penalty in question after observance of all the legal and codal formalities and after the implementation of the direction issued by the Tribunal to get recommendation from the Enquiry Officer with regard to the quantum of punishment as required by Section 5(3) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. There is no cavil with the proposition that a competent authority can always disagree with the Enquiry Officer and can refuse to accept his recommendation but for that reasons are to be recorded. In this case the competent authority had given reasons for not accepting the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer but surprisingly he had not issued any show-cause notice to the appellant before passing the impugned order. In fact the appellant was condemned without getting an opportunity to present his defence against the proposed penalty. It was a legal requirement that before passing any penalty the competent authority should have issued a notice to the appellant and given him an opportunity of personal hearing. Thus the proceedings suffer from legal lacuna. As such the impugned order cannot be maintained.
5. We have noticed with concern that the departmental authorities do not take sufficient pre- cautions in observance of the procedure prescribed by the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000, since repealed, or by the Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973, giving latitude to the civil servants to get favourable orders from the Courts. We are confident that this aspect of the case shall be looked into by the government and by the higher authorities. Instructions shall be issued to all the concerned quarters to follow the prescribed procedure in letter and spirit.
6. Since the appellant had not, been served with a show-cause notice by the competent authority, therefore, we are constrained to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The case is remanded to the competent authority for fresh decision after giving a show-cause notice to the appellant and an opportunity of personal hearing. The matter may be completed preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of judgment is received in the office of respondents.
7. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.