' M. SALEM CHAUDHARY (CHAIRMAN).-This Government appeal filed on 22nd July, 1974 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur on 2nd April, 1974 in favour of the respondent. The facts leading to this appeal are as under.
2. The respondent was employed as Kanungo Noorpur Circle, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur and charge-sheeted on 24th January, 1970 by the order of the Collector concerned on the ground that he had certain agriculture lands purchased for himself but got mutated in the names of his father and wife, respectively. Further he failed to disclose the same in the Annual Wealth Return which amounted to mis conduct under the West Pakistan Government Servants Rules applicable to the respondent. After conclusion of the enquiry the respondent was served with a charge-sheet on 15th January, 1970 and was dismissed by the Collector on 6th October 1970. On appeal to the Commissioner the case was remanded to Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur on 16th June, 1971 on the ground that the respondent has not been served with a show-cause notice. The Commissioner handed over the notice to the respondent in his Court and directed him to appear before the Collector. The respondent was formally heard by the Collector, Bahawalpur on 2nd August, 1971 who after hearing the respondent dismue;ed him from service on 2nd August, 1971. Thereafter, it appears, respondent filed a civil suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, on 21st March, 1972 which was decided on 4th August 1974. The learned Senior Civil Judge held that according to the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1950, respondent was not required to file any return as held by the competent authority, nor he was required under the aforesaid Rules to secure permission a the competent authority to purchase immovable property not exceeding the value of Rs, 5,000. The Court further came to the conclusion that father of the respondent was not dependent upon him and for that reason the Rules in question were inapplicable as according to the rules it was in the case or dependents only that the Government Servant was required to obtain the requisite permission before acquiring immovable property of the value exceeding Rs, 5,000. The plea of the respondent before the Court that even the property purchased in the name of wife has been given to her by the father of the respondent was also upheld. The present appellant challened the Order 1309re the Additional District Judge but before the decision of appeal the same was declared to have abated by the Additional District Judge on 5th July, 1974 in view of the provisions contained in the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Ordinance, 1974. Consequently the present appeal before us by the Government on 22nd October, 1974. The Government Pleader argued that the Civil Court had wrongly applied the West Pakistan Government Servants Conduct Rules of 1966 as the transactions constituting the charge against the respondent took place before 1966. As such the conduct of the respondent has to be judged under the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1950 under which respondent was required to obtain prior permission from the Government even if he wanted to purchase property exceeding the value of Rs, 400. Thus the finding of the Civil Court being based upon the 1966 Rules is untenable and merits to be set aside.
He further argued that no evidence was produced by the respondent to show that his father was a man of independent means or he could purchase the property in question for himself and for the wife of the respondent. Thus the Government pleader pressed for acceptance of this appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Zahur-ul-Haq, Advocate in his turn argued that the respondent had not been allowed reasonable opportunity by the departmental authorities. In the first instance he attacked the validity of the service of the show-cause notice upon him afresh by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur on 6th October, 1970. He submitted that the order of the Commissioner was silent in this behalf. In any case notice should have been served upon him by the competent authority and not through the appellate authority. He further submitted that the notice was not even signed by the competent authority and thus it was no notice in the eye of law.
He relied upon the ratio of the decision in Law Notes 1969 Quetta 60, in this behalf. He further argued that the notice served upon the respondent was short inasmuch as he was not allowed the period prescribed under . The West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. The learned counsel relied in this respect on the decision of the Lahore High Court Law Notes 1966 Lahore 54, wherein notice served upon civil servant allowing him two days was held to be short and it was held that it was tantamount to denial of reasonable opportunity to the civil servant concerned. Lastly the contention of the appellant was that in reply to the show-cause notice, he had asked for an opportunity to adduce evidence to controvert the finding of the enquiry officer against him. The respondent while leading evidence at that stage intended to establish that his father was a businessm an and had his own property in the area purchased by him apart from the property in dispute. To support this contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Lahore High Court in PLD 1969 Lah.
1112. According to the aforesaid decision if the Government servant asked for an opportunity the same had to be allowed to him. With these submissions the learned counsel for the respondent pressed for rejection of this appeal. Mr. A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader, in rebuttal pointed out that the show-cause notice served upon the respondent, no doubt was not signed by the competent authority but it was duly authorised by the signature of the competent authority On the office copy and was served thereafter on the respondent. So far the opportunity for defence is concerned, he relied upon the statement of the respondent before the Enquiry Officer 431Q 22nd June, 1970 according to which the respondent bad stated before the Enquiry Officer that his written statement and explanation be read in evidence and he did not Want to lead further evidence.
3. After hearing both the parties we are of the view that so far as the finding of the civil Court as to the requirement of seeking prior permission to acquire property in dispute was concerned the same could not be sustained. The Civil Court evidently erred in applying the Conduct Rules, 1966. In this case all the transactions in question took place before 1966. Thus Conduct Rules, 1950 were applicable in this case under which the prescribed limit of the value of the property was Rs, 400 and not Rs, 5,000. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the respondent made a reference to the Bahawalpur State Service Conduct Rules which could have more appropriately governed the case of the appellant where in the ceiling of the value of the property was only Rs,
200. Jr. This view of law we cannot maintain that the appellant was not required to seek permission from the competent authority before acquiring the property. However, on the other point we are clearly of the opinion that the respondent had been denied reasonable opportunity to substantiate and establish his assertion that his father was a man of independent means. Under law respondent is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and to establish his part of the case not only before the Enquiry Officer but also before the competent authority. The learned Government Pleader has been able to show to us only that the respondent had expressed his desire not to lead any further evidence before the Enquiry Officer but he has produced nothing to controvert the contention of the respondent that he wanted further opportunity to lead evidence to establish his plea before the competent authority. The competent authority failed to provide such an opportunity for which n reasons were traceable on the record. In the absence of any valid reason rejecting the request of the respondent, we are constrained to hold that the respondent has not been allowed due opportunity to establish his case. We accordingly accept the appeal and remand the case to the Collector, Bahawalpur with the direction that he would allow due opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence to establish his plea that his father was not dependent upon him and had independent means to make purchase of land in question in his own right. We also direct him to serve the respondent with a fresh show cause notice allowing him reasonable time to show cause and lead evidence as desired by him. Consequently we accept the appeal to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.