' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-This service appeal is directed against the order of District Education Officer, District West, Karachi terminating the services of appellant Mr. Khalid Hassan, Junior School Teacher of APWA Government Boys Secondary School, New Karachi for alleged misconduct.
' The facts in brief are that the appellant was served with a charge-sheet dated 21st April, 1980 issued by the District Education Officer containing three charges namely : (1) instigating the students to resort to strike ; (2) immoral behaviour with girl students ; and (3) infliction of corporal punishment to one student. To this charge-sheet no statement of allegations was appended giving particulars and details in respect of these charges which appear to be of a general nature and rather vague. Mr. Muslim Naqvi, Sub-Divisional Education Officer, New Karachi was appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against Mr. Khalid Hassan. The Enquiry Officer actually conducted no enquiry but relied upon the statements alleged to have been recorded by the Head Mistress of the School who was the complainant. These statements were said to be of students, teachers and parents but their actual contents are not known. The copies of these statements relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to the accused officer nor was he in any way associated with the enquiry. He was not even given any opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses. Even the statements contained allegations of a general nature and no specific case was apparently cited.
' Copy of this report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the appellant nor was any show- cause notice issued to him in this respect. He was also not informed regarding the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted on him.
' The order of termination of service dated 11th June, 1980 appears to have been sent to the appellant by registered post. The registration was effected on 14th June, 1980 but the envelope was actually delivered to the appellant on 16th June, 198J. The appellant then preferred a departmental appeal on 6th July, 1980 and after waiting for 90 days he filed the present service appeal on 16th October, 1980.
' It appears that no action was taken on the departmental appeal but the appellant was called and a written apology was obtained from him. According to the appellant he had written the apology as dictated on 1st October, 1980, on the promise that he would be re-instated in the same post but afterwards he was given a fresh appointment against a leave vacancy which expired after a few months and he never joined that post being of temporary duration.
The entire proceedings culminating in the termination of service of the appellant are full of legal defects and irregularities which cannot be slightly brushed aside.
' Firstly the charges in the charge-sheet are vague and of a general nature and no specific instances of any kind have been mentioned.
2. No statement of allegations was furnished to the appellant to show the nature of these charges and the evidence which has been relied upon in support of these charges.
3. The statements recorded by the Complainant in the course of a preliminary enquiry, alone formed the subject-matter of the subsequent enquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The Enquiry Officer neither heard any evidence nor allowed the appellant to refute the evidence and offer any defence. The appellant was not even informed of the date and time of alleged enquiry and his statement was not recorded.
4. The copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 6th June, 1980 was admittedly not furnished to the appellant and he was thus kept in the dark regarding the actual allegations levelled against him.
5. Lastly the appellant was not served with any show-cause notice after the report of the Enquiry Officer nor was he aware of the proposed penalty of termination of his service.
' In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mir Muhammad v. N:-W. F. P.
Government (1), it has been pointed out that it was necessary and consistent with the principles of natural justice that {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1981 SC 176 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' not only the respondent should have been furnished with a copy of the enquiry report but also he should have been given an opportunity to show cause why the order of dismissal should not be passed against him.
That such an opportunity must take the form of written show-cause notice to the respondent. It was further observed that issue of show-cause notice was imperative even under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and the stage for issue of notice arrived only after the Enquiry Officer recorded evidence and submitted his report. The Authorised Officer has also to inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken and the accused shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action. These requirements, the Supreme Court observed were essential and failure to comply with the requirements invalidated the ultimate order passed by the authority against the accused officer.
' Thus not only is the impugned order defective on merits but it also suffers from the legal errors of procedure rendering the proceedings as invalid.
' We accordingly set aside the order [of removal and direct that the appellant may be immediately re-instated as a Junior School Teacher. We further direct that he may be paid the arrears of salary and emoluments from the date of removal till re-instatement, under section 18 of the Sind Civil Servants Act. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.