' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J. --- Through the above titled writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that impugned show-cause notice dated 12.08.2014 may kindly be set aside and be declared as illegal and unlawful. It is further prayed that respondents may kindly be restrained to take any adverse action against the petitioners.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners (W.P. No. 3934-2014) were appointed as Office Superintendent & Assistant Security Officer, whereas petitioner in W.P. No. 3966-2014 was appointed as Superintendent in the Evacuee Trust Property Board. Subsequently, the services of the petitioners were placed at the disposal of Federal Investigation Agency on deputation for an initial period of three years. There-after, they were absorbed in FIA. Later on, the petitioners were sent on training course which they had successfully completed. There-after, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners for initiation of, proceedings against them under Government Servants (Efficiency & Disciplines) Rules, 1973, which were replied, but the respondents are adamant to proceed against the petitioners, hence these writ petitions.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Both the learned counsel appearing for their respective parties have conceded a proposal that proceedings initiated against the petitioners be set aside and be attached with the inquiry going to be conducted as general.
5. Admittedly, the responsibility cannot be incurred alone on the petitioners without conducting inquiry and they cannot be held responsible, unless other officials are joined.
6. It is also a fact on record that absorption of the petitioners is not in their control, rather if the Department thinks that high officials have committed mischief or illegal act, how the petitioners alone can be held responsible. Unless charge is fixed upon those high officials, the petitioners cannot be put to such allegations being the collusive element. Therefore, the proposal conceded by both the parties for initiation of proceedings after detailed inquiry seems to be plausible.
7. In view of above, impugned show-cause notices are set aside. However, the Department is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, if it is concluded that responsibility incurs upon those high officials who committed illegalities in fragrant violation of rules.
8. The above titled writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that proceedings against the petitioners would be subject to the outcome of inquiry conducted generally by a fact finding inquiry committee.