1. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 19.01.2014 on the allegation that during his physical search Rs, 300/- were recovered from his possession, which were hidden in his socks. He submitted reply to the allegations whereby he denied the allegations leveled against him. Being dissatisfied with the reply the Respondent No, 1 imposed major penalty of removal from service vide order dated 23.04.2014. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected on 23.07.2014. Both the above mentioned orders were further assailed through revision petition dated 30.09.2014, which was also rejected vide final order dated 08.12.2014. Hence, this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the charges 4 leveled against the appellant are baseless, vague and unspecific. The punishing authority while imposing the impugned penalty did not comprehended that there was no ill-motive or intention of the appellant for commission of any act of omission, but this question of fact that as to whether the act or omission on the part of the appellant was intentional or not, was not resolved through procedure of regular inquiry. He adds that it is well settled law that a major penalty cannot be awarded to an accused civil servant without holding a regular inquiry. He further argued that if there was any lapse on part of the appellant, in that eventuality at the most the allegation leveled against the appellant in the show cause notice pertains to negligence or carelessness, thus, no major penalty could be awarded to the appellant on the basis of this minor act.
2. ' On the other hand learned District Attorney while opposing the version of the appellant has prayed for dismissal of the appeal because according to him all the impugned orders are quite sustainable in the specific back ground of this case.
3. ' I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record minutely. It is an admitted fact that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant whereby the holding of regular inquiry was dispensed with without disclosing any tangible material available on the record. It is further necessary to note that in this case the matter in issue was not based on any proposition rather factual controversies were also available with regard to possession of alleged money whether it was illegal gratification or otherwise. In such like circumstances denial to the holding of regular inquiry is not only unjustified but source of serious prejudice to the rights of the appellant.
4. Obliviously it is violation of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 as well as principle of natural justice and right of fair trial. Moreover, Honorable Supreme Court or Pakistan in number of cases held that in cases where major penalty of dismissal/removal from service was going to be imposed, adoption of shorter procedure is in fact justice denied to the accused civil servant. This Tribunal is at loss to understand that how on the basis of mere written reply submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice, not only he was found guilty of the charge of negligence but held responsible for obtaining illegal gratification. It is further surprising to notice that according to the departmental authorities full opportunity was offered to the appellant to prove his innocence but he failed. Whereas it is surfaced from the record that he was just served with a show cause notice and heard personally after submission of his written reply in a slip shod manner, certainly no fair opportunity was afforded to the appellant as per its legal requirements.
5. ' It is also observed that the impugned orders passed by the departmental authorities are based on whims and presumptions and there is no concrete material evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the alleged guilt of receiving illegal gratification from any visitors.
6. However, at the most as per his own reply to the show cause notice he is found guilty only to the extent of negligence or carelessness, as he kept money in his socks while performing sensitive duty.
7. ' The philosophy of punishment is based on the concept of retribution, which may be either through the method of deterrence or reformation. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed in its various Judgments that in service matters, extreme penalty for minor acts depriving a person from right of earning would defeat the reformatory concept of punishment.
8. ' In view of the above discussion, the appeal in hand is partially accepted and the penalty of removal from service is converted into Censure by treating the intervening period as leave of the kind due.