1. ' M. SA.LEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-In this case the appellant was dismissed from service as Dispenser, Government T. B. Clinic, Daska. He was charge-sheeted by District Health Officer, Sialkot in 1979 on the ground of misconduct and insubordination. The charge-sheet was preceded by an enquiry by the Martial Law Authorities who after probe into the allegations against the appellant reported that he was liable to departmental action on the ground of misconduct and insubordination. The appellant was accused of using unparliamentary language in open meeting at Narowal before DIvILA against his superiors and also for giving a false application against his Officers to the Headquartes DMLA. The charge-sheet specified that the appellant was liable to disciplinary action and one or more of the penalties specified under Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, could be levied upon him. The appellant was also granted a persona/ hearing and was eventually dismissed from service by the order of District Health Officer, Sialkot dated 18th July, 1979. He preferred an appeal against his dismissal to the Deputy Director, Health Services, Lahore Division who also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 5th December, 1979. Consequently, the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 5th January, 1980, ' The learned counsel appearing for appellant raised the objection that the service of the charge- sheet upon the appellant clearly implied that the action against the appellant was initiated in terms of rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. It envisages the enquiry into the conduct of the appellant.
2. According to the appellant, no enquiry was ever held. Thus the impugned action was not according to the relevant provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (E & 13) Rules, 1975. The learned counsel also argued that the charge-sheet served upon the appellant was not according to law as it did not specify the major or minor penalty. The appellant was thus not clear as to which penalty he was likely to face. The appellant also complained that he was not heard by the Deputy Director, Health Services before disposing of the appeal. The Department, on the other hand, argued that the conduct of the appellant was thoroughly probed into by the Martial Law Authorities in consequence of which he was proved guilty. Thus no further enquiry was called for. The Department also contested the suggestion that the proceeding, were initiated under rule 7 and not under rule 6 of the (E & D) Rules, 1975. In reply the appellant submitted that despite demand he was never disclosed the contents of the aforesaid enquiry in the absence of which the same could not be used against him in the proceedings under (E & D) Rules, 1975.
3. We find that the contention regarding lack of hearing by the Deputy Director, Health, as the appellate authority remained uncontroverted.14 Thus the impugned order is clearly in violation of rule 15 of the (E & D), Rules, 1975. We have checked the record and we also find that the appellant had demanded the copy of the enquiry report by the Martial Law Authorities which was not supplied to him. For both the reasons above, we cannot sustain appellate order. As regards the objection that department enquiry was necessary, we are satisfied that a thorough . Enquiry was held by the Martial Law Authorities and the appellant had " not disputed that he had been associated with the same. Thus no further enquiry was called for. The show-cause notice, though captioned as charge-sheet issued to the appellant, substantially complied with the requirements of law. We also find that the action taken was under Rule 6 and not under rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and remand the case to the Deputy Director, Health who should supply a copy of the report of the Martial Law Authorities to the appellant and decide the appeal after granting him hearing afresh. There will be no orders as to costs.