' Justice (R) Mujeebullah Siddiqui Chairm an.--Both the above appeals arise out of similar facts and circumstances.
Both the appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this single common judgment.
2. The relevant facts are that appellant Muhammad Ismail Lashari, who was serving as Inspector Police was served with the following show-cause notice on 22.05.2015.
"OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECT OR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTH ZONE. KARACHI No, DIGP/S.Z/DP/2015/101 13 Karachi, dated 22-05-2015 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ' WHEREAS, I am satisfied that the nature of allegations is such for which sufficient documentary evidence as required under Section 5(4) of the Removal From Service (Special Power) Sindh of Ordinance, 2000 as amended by Sindh Ordinance XVII of 2001 is available and no departmental inquiry as contemplated by Section 5(1) of the aforesaid ordinance if conducted necessary .
' AND WHEREAS, I am of the view that the allegations if established call for the award of one or more punishments.
' Now Therefore, I Capt: Rtd. Feroz Shah, PSP, PPM, Deputy Inspector General of Police, south zone, Karachi, as per rule 3(i) (a) of the aforesaid Ordinance on the basis of following grounds of action, authorized officer call upon inspector k-1827 Ismail Lashari under Suspension Former SHO Sohrab Goth PS now PHQ Garden south zone, Karachi to SHOW CAUSE NOTICE within seven (7) days of the receipt hereof, as to why you should no be awarded any one of the punishments laid down in the said Ordinance. While submitting your reply you should also state whether you desire to be heard in person. "as per orders by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Criminal Petition No, 89-K of 2014 that complainant Anwer Ali was present in Court stated therein that he is being extended threats by you and Sub- Inspector Shaikh Shoaib Ali. Complainant further states that you and your brother namely Ishaq Lashari chased him and apprehends danger of his life and lives of his family members with your ends. The Honourable. Court has further ordered that if any harm is caus ed either to the complainant or any his family member you, SI Shaikh Shoaib Ali and SI Ishaq Lashari will hold responsible.
' The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has also asked for initiating proceeding against you under Rule 16.2 of the Police Rule, 1934, being patch record, which shows that during the length of service you were awarded 07 major punishments including Dismissal from service twice and Forfeiture of Approved Service (04 times). Further , you were discharged from service once, reverted to substantive ranks thrice and suspended for several times due to involvement in illegal activities, corruption/malpractice. You were also involved in FIR No, 90/2015 under Sections 365/395/302/34, PPC of PS Sachal. Furthermore, as per entry mentioned in your service book ACE case No, 50/97 and criminal case vide FIR No, 101/06 u/S. 363/342/302, PPC of PS Sakrand were also registered against you. Being a member of the disciplinary force your involvement in such illegal activities is against the norms of discipline which damaged the credibilit y of police department in the eye of judiciary as well as general public for which you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action under RSO-2000 (including dismissal from service).
' In case your reply is not received within the specified period, it shall' be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the case will be decided ex-parte.
(Capt: FEROZ SHAH)
PSP, PPM, Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Karachi.
3. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice pleading his innocence_ Although departmental enquiry as contemplated under Section 5(1) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RSO, 2000) was dispensed with in exercise of the powers under Section 5(4) of the RSO, 2000 but it appears that fact finding enquiry was directed and for this purpose Mr. Faizullah Korejo, SP Investigation-I, South Zone, Karachi, was nominated as enquiry officer. He conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 13.07.2015. On the basis of said enquiry report, final order was passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police South Zone Karachi on 15.07.2015 whereby the appellant was dismissed from service. The final order reads as follows:- OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECT OR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI No, DIGP /S.Z/DP /13491-97 Karachi, dated 15-07-2015 FINAL ORDER ' Inspector (K-1827) Muhammad Ismail Lashari of PHQ Garden South Zone, Karac hi was placed under suspension by the Addl: IGP Karachi Range, vide his office order No, EB/E-II-12565-74 dated 04-02-2015 and also issued a Show Cause Notice vide this of fice No, DIGP/S.Z/DP-101 13 dated 22-05-2015, on the following allegations: "As per orders by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Criminal Petition No, 89-K of 2014 that complainant Anwer Ali was present in Court stated therein that he is being extended threats by him and Sub- Inspector Shaikh Shoaib Ali. Complainant further states that he and his brother namely Ishaq Lashari chased him and apprehends danger of his life and lives of his family members with his ends. The Honourable Court has further ordered that if any harm is casued either to the complainant or any his family member him, SI Shaikh Shoib Ali and SI lshaq Lashari will hold responsible.
' The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has also asked for initiating proceeding against him under Rule 16.2 of the Police Rule, 1934, being patch record, which shows that during the length of service he was awarded 07 major punishments including Dismissal from Service twice and Forfeiture of Approv ed Services (04 times). Further , he was discharge from service once, reverted to substantive ranks trice and suspended for several times due to involvement in illegal activities, corruption/malpractice. He was also involved in case FIR No, 90/2015 u/Ss 365/395/302/34, PPC of PS Sachal. Furthermore, as per entry mentioned in his service book ACE case No, 50/97 and criminal case vide FIR No, 101/06 uISs. 363/342/302, PPC of'PS Sakrand were also registered against him.
Being a member of disciplinary force his involvement in such illegal activities in against the norms of discipline which damaged the credibility of police department in the eye of judiciary as well as general public for which he has rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under RSO-2000 (including dismissal-from service).
' The respondent Inspector submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice Mr. Faizullah Korejo PSP, SP Investigation-I. South Zone, Karachi was nominated as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter vide this office order No, DIGP/SZ/DP/1 1633-36 dated 15.06.2015. The Enquiry submitted his findings vide No, SSP /Inv/South /RDR/7220 dated 13.07.2015 in which he recommended departmental action against the above named delinquent police of ficer.
' Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and keeping in view the gravity of the charges, which is very serious in nature as he is a black spot on the Police Department; therefore, the above named Inspector hereby awarded major punishment of Dismissal from Service with immediate effect as defined in Removal from Service (Special Power) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 as amended by Sindh Ordinance XVII of 2001.
' All Government articles should be accounted for properly .
(Dr. Jamil Ahmed) PSP , PPM, Deputy Inspector General of Police South Zone.
Karachi."
4. The appellant preferred appeal unde r Section 9 of the RSO. 2000 which was rejected vide order dated 10.11.2015 by an order passed by the DIGP Administration for Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi Range.
5. Similar show-cause notice was issued against the appellant in Appeal No, 1661/2015 which reads as follows:-- OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECT OR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE. KARACHI ' NO. DIGP/S.Z/DP/2015/101 12 /Karachi dated 22.05-2015.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.
' WHEREAS, I am satisfied that the nature of allegations is such for which sufficient documentary evidence as required under Section 5(4) of the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance-2000 as amended by Sindh Ordinance XVII of 2001 is available and no departmental enquiry as contemplated by Section 5(1) of the aforesaid Ordinance if conducted necessary .
' AND WHEREAS, I am of the view that the allegations if established calls for the award of one or more punishments.
' NOW THEREFORE, I Capt: Rtd. Feroz Shah, PSP, PPM, Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Karachi, as per Rule 2(i) (a) of the aforesaid Ordinance on the basis of followin g grounds of action, authorized officer call upon SI K 1827 Ishaq Lashari under Suspension while posted SIU now PHO Garden South Zone, Karachi to SHOW CAUSE NOTICE within seven (07) days of the receipt hereof, as to why you should not be awarded any one of the punishments laid down in the said Ordinance. While submitting your reply you should also state whether you desire to be heard in person.
"As per orders by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Criminal. Petition No, 89-K of 2014 that complainant Anwar Ali was present in Court stated therein that he is being extended threats by you, your brother PI Ismail Lashari and Sub-Inspector Shaikh Shoaib Ali. Complainant further states that you and your brother namely Ismail Lashari chased him and apprehen ds danger of his life and lives of his famil y members with your ends. The Honourable Court has further ordered that if any harm is caused either to the complainant or any his family member you. SI Shaikh Shoaib Arand PI Ismail Lashari will hold responsible.
' The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has also asked for initiating proceeding against you under rule 16.2 of the Police Rule, 1934, being patch record, which shows that during the length of service you were awarded minor punishment of stoppage of increme nts for 05 times and suspended for several times due to involvement in illegal activities, corruption/malpractice. You were also involved in case FIR No, 43/2000 u/Ss. 392/34 337-H Q & D of PS Gadap. Being a member of discipli nary force your involvement in such illegal activities is against the norms of discipline which damaged the credibilit y of police department in the eye of judiciary as well us general public for which you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action under RSO-2000 (including dismissal from service.) "
' In case your reply is not received within the specified period, it shall be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the case will be decided ex-parte.
(Capt: Rt. FEROZ SHAH) PSP . PPM.
Deputy Inspector General of Police, South zone, Karachi"
6. The said appellant also submitted reply to the show-cause notice. On the basis of fact finding report by Mr. Faizullah Korejo Superintendent of Police, Investigation-1 South Zone which is common in both the appeals, a final order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police South Zone Karachi on 15.07.2015, whereby the second appellant namely Muhammad Ishaq Lashari was also dismissed from service. The final order reads as follows:-- 'OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECT OR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI No, DIGP/S. Z./DP/- 13498-504 Karachi, dated 15-07-2015 FINAL ORDER ' SI-K-2891 Ishaq Lashari of PHQ Garden South Zone, Karachi was placed under suspension by the Addl: IGP Karachi Range, vide his office order No, EB/E-II/-12565-74 dated 04.02.2015 and also issued a Show Cause Notice vide this of fice No, DIGP/S.Z/DP/-101 12 dated 22.05.2015, on the following allegations:-- "As per orders by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Criminal Petition No, 89-K of 2014 that complainant Anwar Ali was present in Court stated therein that he is being extended threats by you, your brother PI Ismail Lashari and Sub-Inspector Shaikh Shoaib Ali. Complainant further states that you and your brother namely Ismail Lashari chased him and apprehen ds danger of his life and lives of his famil y members with your ends. The Honourable Court has further ordered that if any harm is caused either to the complainant or any his family member you, SI Shaikh Shoaib Ali and PI Ismail Lashari will hold responsible.
' The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has also asked for initiating proceeding against you under Rule 16.2 of the Police Rule, 1934, being patch record, which shows that during the length of service you were awarded minor punishment of stoppage of increments for 05 times and suspended for several times due to. involvement in illegal activities, corruption/malpractice. You were also involved in case FIR No, 43/2000 u/Ss. 392/34 337-H Q & D of PS Gadap. Being a member of discipli nary force your involvement in such illegal activities is against the norms of discipline which damaged the credibilit y of police department in the eye of judiciary as well as general public for which you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action under RSO-2000 (including dismissal from service.)"
' The respondent officer submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice, Mr. Faizullah Korejo PSP, investigation-1, South Zone, Karachi was nominated as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter vide this office Order No, DIGP/SZ/DP/1 1633-36 dated 15.06.2015. The Enquiry Officer subm itted his findings vide No, SSP/Inv/South/RDR/7220 dated 13.07.2015.
' Keeping in view the gravity of the charges, which is very serious in nature as he is a black spot on the Police Department; therefore, the above named Sub-Inspector is hereby awarded major punishment of Dismissal from Service with immediate effect as defined in Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 as amended by Sindh Ordinance XVII of 2001. ' All Government articles should be accounted for properly .
(Dr. JAMIL AHMED) PSP , PPM DEPUTY INSPECT OR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE. KARACHI"
7. The second appellant also preferred appeal under Section 9 of the RSO, 2000 which was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2015 in the same manner as in the case of appellant Muhammad Isamil Lashari. Both the appellants feeling aggrieved with their dismissal from service and dismissal of their appeals under Section 9 of the RSO, 2000 have preferred these two appeals.
8. The appellant Muhammad Ismail Lashari has assailed the impugned original and appellate orders inter alia on the ground that he was serving as Inspector in Police Department and the competent authority was Inspector General of Police and not the DIGP South Zone Karachi. Secondly the enquiry officer/enquiry committee as envisaged under Section 5(1) was not appointed with the result that the appellant was deprived of his rights in law and that the fact finding enquiry is neither equivalent to, nor substitute for regular enquiry under Section 5(1) of the RSO, 2000.
9. The appellant Ishaq Lashari has also raised the objections as above. He has submitted that he was serving as Sub-Inspector and the competent authority for the appellant was SSP and not the DIG, South Karachi. The Respondents No, 1 & 2 have not refuted the grounds urged in the memo. of appeals.
10. We have heard Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghouri, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. S. Kamil Shah, AAG assisted by S.I Sajjad Hussain for the respondents.
11. After hearing learned advocate for the parties and perusal of entire record we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders in both the appeals are violative of law. The impugned order s are not sustainable in law and therefore, facts are not required to be considered, more particularly because we propose to remand the cases to the competent authorities for de-novo proceedings.
12. It is admitted position that appellant Ismail Lashari was serving as Inspector in the Police Department at the time of issuance of show-cause notice to him and initiation of proceedings under Section 3 of the RSO, 2000. It is provided in Section 3 of the RSO, 2000 that where, in the opinion of the competent authority a person in Government service is inefficient, or has ceased to be efficient for any reason or is guilty of being habitually absent from duty without prior approval of leave or guilty of mis-conduct or corrupt, or may reasonably be considered as corrupt, may by order in writing dismiss or remove such person from service, compulsorily retire or reduce him to lower post or pay scale, or impose one or more minor penalties as prescribed in the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The term competent authority has been defined to mean the Governor and wherein relation to any person or class of persons, the Governor authorizes any person or authority , not being inferior in rank to the appointing authority prescribed for the post held by the person against whom action is proposed to be taken; to exercise the powers of competent authority under the Ordinance. Vide Notification No, SOR-I(S&GAD)/3-2/Ordi-2000 dated 03.05.2001, the Governor was pleased to authorize the officer competent to appoint the person against whom action is proposed to be taken to exercise the powers of the Competent Authority in respect of such person under the said Ordinance.
13. The appellant Muhammad Ismail Lashari was serving as Inspector in Sindh Police and the appointing authority for the post of Inspector Police is the Inspector General of Police and not the Deputy Inspector General of Police. In the case of appellant Muhammad Ismail Lashari the show-cause notice was issued on 22.05.2015 by Capt. (Retd.)
Feroz Shah, Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone Karachi. The Deputy Inspector General of Police was not the appointing authority of appellant Muhammad Ismail Lashari and consequently he was not the competent authority as defined in Section 2 of the RSO, 2000. The show-cause notice issued to appellant Muhammad Ismail Lashari by the then Deputy Inspector General of Police South Zone was without jurisdiction. Similarly the order of dismissal dated 15.07.2015 in continuation of the show-cause notice passed by his successor DIG is also without jurisdiction.
14. So far appellant Muhammad Ishaq Lashari is concerned the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that SSP was appointing authority and competent authority is without substance. The appointing authority in respect of, Sub-Inspector and consequently competent authority is the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Ranges in Sindh, except for Karachi Range. So far Karachi Range is concerned it is headed by Additional Inspector General Police. The Deputy Inspector General of Police in Karachi are heads of Zones and not the heads of Range, as is evident from perusal of show-cause notice, dismissal order and the appellate order . Appointing authority of Sub-Inspector Police is head of the Range and not the head of Zone. It is provided in Rule 9 (2) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation & Seniority) Rules, 1975 that the appointing authority shall, in the month of January every year, cause to be prepared, or, as the case may be, revised, the seniority list under sub- rule (1). In Karachi Range the seniority list of not only Sub-Inspectors but ASIs are also being issued by the Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi Range and not by the respective DIGs of the Zones. From this fact it is abundantly clear that in Karachi Range the appointing authority of the Sub-Inspectors & ASIs is Additional Inspector General of Police and not the DIGs. The result is that all the actions taken against Sub-Inspector by DIG South Zone Karachi from issuance of show-cause notice to the dismissal order are without justification. In the cases of both the appellants several other illegalities have been committed which have rendered the penalties imposed vide orders dated 15.07.2015 as nullity in law .
15. It is admitted positions that in both the cases only one show-cause notices have been issued. No final show- cause notices have been issued and no enquiry as envisaged under Section 5(1) of the RSO, 2000 has been conducted. There is a glaring contradiction in the orders passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone Karachi. On one hand, in the case of both the appellants it has been held while issuing show-cause notice that the DIG is satisfied that the nature of allegations are such for which sufficient documentary evidence as required under Section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 is available and no departmental enquiry as contemplated in Section 5(1) of the aforesaid Ordinance is necessary . On the other hand, the same officer has appointed a SSP for conducting a fact finding enquiry . We are persuaded to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the fact finding enquiry is not a substitute for the regular enquiry as envisaged under Section 5(1) of the RSO, 2000 which is apparent from the report submitted by enquiry officer on 13.07.2015 i,e, after issuance of show-cause notice.
16. We are of the considered opinion that the show-cause notices and final orders dismissing the appellants Muhammad Ismail Lashari and Muhammad Ishaq Lashari are not sustainable in law on more than one counts. The first ground is that the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. The compete nt authorities are the Inspector General of Police and Additional Inspector General Karachi respectively and not the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone Karachi.
17. In addition to the above ground the impugned orders in both the appeals are not sustainable in law for the following reasons:--
(a) It is provided in Section 5(4) of the RSO, 2000 that the competent authority may dispense with the enquiry under sub-section (1), if it is in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against the accused or for reasons to be recorded in writing it is satisfied that there is no need of holding any enquiry . There is a chain of rulings by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan that where passing of major penalty is proposed against a civil servant, a regular enquiry should be held through enquiry officer or enquiry committee to scrutinize the conduct of a person in government service. The first condition in Section 5(4) of the RSO, 2000 is that the competent authority is in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against the accused. It is not shown in the show-cause notices and while dispensing with the enquiry , as to what was the documentary evidence in possession of Deputy Inspector General of Police and copies of such documents were not furnished to the appellants enabling them to defend themselves properly . The other condition is that it can be done for reasons to be recorded in writing showing satisfaction that there is no need of holding an enquiry . No such reasons have been recorded in writing by the officer issuing the show-cause notices. We are of the considered view that there should be objectivity in orders passed under Section 5(4) of the RSO, 2000. If the competent authority is in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against the accused, the said documentary evidence should be specified in the order and the copies be supplied to the accused persons. So far satisfaction of competent authority is concerned, it should not be a subjective satisfaction but should be an objective satisfaction recorded in writing. When examined on the touchstone of these conditions, we find that the order by the competent authority while issuing the show-cause notices and dispensing with the holding of enquiry is not in consonance with the requirements of law. The observation in the show-cause notice that sufficient documentary evidence as required under Section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 as amended by Sindh Ordinance of XVII of 2001 is available and no departmental enquiry as contemplated under Section 5(1) of the aforesaid Ordinance, is belied by the conduct of the officer issuing show-cause himself. After issuing show-cause notice on 22.05.2015 and receiving reply on the same day, he appointed Mr. Faizullah Korejo, Senior Superintendent of Police Investigation-I South Zone Karachi on 15.06.2015 as enquir y officer. It is stated in the final order that Mr. Faizullah Korejo was nominated as enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter vide- office order dated 15.06.2015 and the enquiry officer submitted his findings on 13.07.2015, in which he recommended departmental action against the delinquent police officers. In his final order he has placed reliance on the findings of the enquiry officer as well. He has further held that keeping in view the gravity of the charges which are very serious in nature an as appellant is a black-spot on the Police Department he is awarded punishment of dismissal from service. Dr. Jamil Ahmed, Deputy Inspector General of Police in addition to the fact that he was not aware, that he was not the competent authority under the RSO, 2000 in respect of appe llants also failed to comprehend that mere gravity of the charge is not a sufficient ground for awarding any punishment. The dismissal from service is the highest punishment for a civil servant and for that purpose evidence is required to be recorded, leading to the conclusion that the serious nature of charge stands proved, which is totally lacking in.these two cases.
(b) It is provided in Section 3 (1) (e) of the RSO, 2000 that the competent authority after enquiry by an enquiry officer or the enquiry committee appointed under Section 5, may notwithstanding anything contained in any law or the terms and conditions of servic e of such person by order in writing impose the penalty . It is provided in Section 5(1) of the RSO, 2000 that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the competent authority shall, before passing an order under Section 3 appoint an enquiry officer or enquiry committee to scrutinize the conduct of person in government service who is alleged to have committed any of the acts or omissions specified in Section
3. In this regard the second step provided in Section 5(1) of the RSO, 2000 is that the enquiry officer or as the case may be the enquiry committee shall communicate to the accused the charges and statement of allegations specified in the order passed by the competent authority . It means that the competent authority while appointing enquiry officer or enquiry committee shall specify in such order the charges and statement of allegations and enquiry officer/enquiry committee shall communicate only such charges and statement of allegation as are specified in the order of enquiry . The third step is that the accused shall be required within. 7 days from the date, the charge is communicated to him to put in a written defence. It means that in the show-cause notice issued by the competent authority a charge shOuld be framed specifically containing the allegations against an accused or if no such charge is contained in the show -cause notice the enquiry officer or the enquiry committee appointed to scrutinize the conduct of an accused civil servant, frame a charge on the basis of statement of allegations specified in the order of enquiry , passed by the competent authority and communicate to the accused the charges and statement of allegations. The fourth stage would be that the enquiry officer enquiry committee enquiring into the charge and the statement of allegations, may examine oral or documentary eviden ce in support of the charge. The entire evidence shall be recorded in presence of accused. While recording evidence the enquiry officer/enquiry committee shall give the accused, the right of cross-examining the witnesses against him. The next step would be that the accused should be given the right of defence in which he can also produce tlie witnesses and bring on record the oral or documentary evidence in his support. Further requirement is that the enquiry officer/enquiry committee shall hear the case from day to day and no adjournment shall be given except for reasons to be recorded in writing and intimated to -the competent authority . Thereafter , the enquiry officer/enquiry committee shall submit his or her findings and recommendations to the competent authority within 25 days of the initiation of enquiry . It is further provided in Section 8 of RSO, 2000 that every finding recorded by the enquiry Officer or as the case may be enquiry Committee under Section 5, shall, with the recommendation provided for in that section, be submitted to the competent authority and the competent authority may pass such orders thereon, as it may deem proper in accordance with the provisions of the RSO, 2000, i,e, after issuance of second (final) show-cause notice, informing the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regards, to him and the grounds of the action. It means that the first show-cause notice an accused civil servant shall be informed about the allegations against him in general terms and shall further be informed that if the allegations are established/proved, any one or more of the punishments provided in Section 3 of RSO, 2000 may be awarded. However , in the second and fmal show-cause which shall be issued after conclusion of enquiry under Section 5(1) on the basis of findings and recommendations of the enquiry officer/enquiry committee which were not available prior to the issuance of first show-cause notice.
Alongwith the second show-cause notice the findings and recommendations submitted by the enquiry officer/enquiry committee to the competent authority shall also be furnished to the accused. As already observed, in the first show-cause notice an accused civil servant shall be informed generally about the allegations and the charge based thereon. In the second show-cause notice an accused civil servant shall be informed of the findings and recommendations made by the enquiry officer/enquiry committee and shall be furnished with the specific action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of action , meaning thereby , the facts established/proved during the enquiry under Section 5(1) and the findings and recommendations. After service of second show-cause notice as explained here and providing opportunity of showing cause against the specific action proposed to be taken within 7 days or within such extended period as the competent authority may determine or non-receiving of any reply within the specific period the final order imposing the penalty may be passed. It is obvious that the enquiry envisaged under Section 5(1) cannot be substituted with a fact finding enquiry which is normally conducted in the absence of an accused civil servant. Such fact finding enquiry may be conducted prior to the issuance of show-cause notice and may be made a ground for the issuance of show-cause notice. However , after issuance of show- cause notice under Section 3 of RSO, 2000 an enquiry is required to be conducted in accordance with the law discussed above.
(c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in chain of rulings that in cases of imposition of major penalty the enquiry should not be dispensed with in exercise of the powers vested in the competent authority under Section 5(4) of the RSO, 2000. If the enquiry is dispensed with particularly in the cases of major pena lty it would amount to condemn an accused civil servant without providing him an opportunity of defending himself.
(d) In the present case, one show-cause notice only has been issued. No second show-cause notice has been issued. It is provided in sub-section (2) of Section 3 that before passing an order under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall by order in writing, inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of action. The accused shall be given a reasonable opportunity of show-cause 'against that action within 7 days or within such extended period as the competent authority may determine. It is further provided that no such opportunity shall be given where the competent authority is satisfied that in the interest of security of Pakistan or any part thereof it is not expedient to give such opportunity . It is further provided that no such opportunity shall be given where the accused is dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to sente nce of fine or imprisonment or where the competent authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to give the accused an opportunity of showing cause. Thus before passing final order a second show-cause notice is also required to be served on an accused official, which has not been served in these two appeals. In these two cases one show-cause notice was issued only . In second para of the sole show-cause notices issued in both the cases it is stated as under:-- "AND WHEREAS, I am of the view that the allegations if established call for the award of one or more punishments."
18. The above para is indicative of the fact that before issuance of show-cause notice the allegations against the accused civil servants were not established and therefore, it was stated that the allegations if established call for the award of one or more *punishments. The contents of this para again contradicts the version in the first para that sufficient documentary evidence as required under Section 5(4) is available and no departmental enquiry as contemplated by Section 5(1) is necessary . After stating that allegations if established, it was imperative for the competent authority to appoint enquiry officer/enquiry committee for recording evide nce to establish the allegations, which was not done. This is in addition to the fact that entire proceedings were ultra-vires and without jurisdiction rendering the entire proceedings to nullity in law .
19. For the foregoing reasons the entire proceedings initiated against the appellants by the Deputy Inspector General of Police South Zone Karachi and final order of their dismissal from service, as well as final order passed by Mr. Sultan Ali Khawaja, DIG (Administration) for Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi Range on their appeals are set-aside being without jurisdiction and violative of the -mandatory provisions contained in the RSO, 2000.
20. However , since the allegations against both the appellants are of serious nature and no proper proceedings/enquiry in accordance with law has been conducted, therefore, the case in respect of appellant Muhammad Ismail Lashari is remanded to the Inspector General of Police, who is the competent authority , for de- novo proceedings strictly in accordance with the law. The Inspector General of Police Sindh shall issue fresh show- cause notice and shall not dispense with the enquiry envisaged under Section 5(1) of the RSO, 2000 and conclude the proceedings expeditiously strictly in accordance with the law contained in the RSO, 2000 and explained in this judgment. Likewise, the case of Sub-Insp ector Muhammad Ishaq Lashari is rema nded to the Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi Range for de-novo proceedings on the same lines. The show-cause notices containing charges and detailed allegations shall be issued by the Inspector General Police Sindh and Additional Inspector General Karachi Rangers the competent authorities themselves and not by any other officer working in their establishment or under their administrative control. Likewise if any appeals/representations under Section 9 of RSO, 2000, are preferred to Home Secretary or IG Police such appeals shall be heard and decided by the said appellate authorities themselves, and not by any officer working in their establishment or under their subordination or administrative control. The reason being that jurisdiction so exercised is quasi-judicial in nature and the judicial or quasi-judicial powers/jurisdiction canno t be delegated to anyone, else. The original final order and the appellate final order shall be detailed order and not slipshod and sketchy order and the provisions contained in Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1896 shall be kept in view which reads as follows: "24-A. Exercise of power under enactmen ts.--(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority , office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably , fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority , office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or as the case; may be, the direction to the person af fected prejudicially ."
' Copies of this judgment shall be forwarded to Chief Secretary Sindh, Home Secretary , Government of Sindh and Inspector General Sindh for circulating to all the competent and appellate authorities under RSO, 2000, in the province of Sindh.
' Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.