' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.-The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department, and posted with the Lahore Municipal Corporation. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 18th October, 1977 (Annex: 'A'). The allegation against him was, that out of a cash award of Rs, 4,100 meant for disbursement to certain Police employees, the petitioner in connivance with one Sher Muhammad Constable, embezzled a sum of Rs, 560 and also failed to hand over the Acquaintance Roll and other documents to the concerned Officer of the Lahore Municipal Corporation.
2. In reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner questioned the enquiry referred to therein and further controvert the allegations levelled against him. However, in pursuance of the show-cause notice, S. P. Headquarters, granted a personal hearing to the petitioner and by his order dated 6th November, 1979, decided to hold a regular departmental enquiry under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and appointed Ghulam Sarwar Cheema, D. S. P. As Enquiry Officer.
The latter held an enquiry and in his report dated 16th December, 1979, submitted to the S. P.
Headquarters, opined that the petitioner was guilty of the allegations with which he was charged.
Consequently, the S. P. By his order dated 27th December, 1979 (Annex: 'C') dismissed the petitioner from service.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, which was disallowed. The appellate authority by means of its order dated 25th May, 1980 (Annex: 'E') upheld the decision of the S. P. Having failed before the departmental authority, the petitioner instituted an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which too was dismissed on 10th August, 1980.
4. The validity of these orders has been assailed by the petitioner through this writ petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, the main plea raised on behalf of the petitioner was that he was not served with any charge-sheet alongwith the statement of the allegations and that, therefore, the entire proceedings conducted and the orders passed against him were liable to be struck down. The Tribunal, however, took the view, that he was served both the charge-sheet as well as the summary of the allegations. As his other submissions as well, did not prevail with the Tribunal, accordingly, as observed above the appeal was dismissed.
6. The contention raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal has been reiterated. It is argued that the Service Tribunal as well as the D. I.-G., before whom this point was specifically urged, did not at all examine the record and as there is no material on the file, to support the service of the charge- sheet and the statement of allegations, on the petitioner, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. In order to find out whether there is any material on the record, to endure the findings of the tribunals below, the relevant record was requisitioned which has been examined with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and their arguments heard at some length.
7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the original charge-sheet and a carbon copy thereof, signed by Qazi Safdar Hussain S. P., and so also the statement of allegations in original and its carbon copy, are lying in the enquiry file. The charge-sheet bears Diary No, 7th November 1979.
There is no receipt in the file, evidencing the delivery of the charge-sheet and statement of allegations, to the petitioner. I have also examined the despatch register of the S. P. Headquarters embodying the entry Serial No, 4628. The cloumn regarding the signatures of the recipient of the doacments is blank. This entry is also not suggestive of the despatch of the documents to the petitioner, by post. It is to be seen that in his report, the Enquiry Officer simply stated that the charge-sheet was delivered to the petitioner the S. P. Headquarters. It is not disputed that the enquiry file and the despatch register are the only relevant record.
8. Rule 7 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, governs the procedure to be observed by the Enquiry Officer. Sub-rule (I) (a) of Rule 7 in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced below :- "Where an Inquiry Officer is appointed, the authority shall, -
(a) frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with statement of the allegations explaining the charge and any other relevant circumstances which are proposed to be taken into consideration : 'This rule is para materia with rule 6(5) (a) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1960. The latter rule fell for consideration, in Muhammad Nawaz v. Pakistan (I) before a Division Bench of this Court and it was maintained that :- ' A non-compliance with it would amount to transgression of an if obligatory rule which lays down the minimum standards comprising reasonable opportunity to be afforded to a Government servant against whom action is sought to be taken. The amount of prejudice, which would be caused to the person concerned, need not be taken into consideration, for non-compliance with the rule itself would constitute denial of a reasonable opportunity which per se would vitiate the action taken. In this case, however, the absence of the statement of allegations particularly when the charges were shown of all details in the charge-sheet did cause prejudice to the petitioner because he was deprived of information as to the basis on which the charges had been framed against him and the other circumstances which were taken into consideration when passing orders of his dismissal."
Rule 7 (i) (a) is mandatory and by its non-compliance, not only a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, but the proceedings conducted against him also stand vitiated. From the record produced before me it {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1970 Lab. 811 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' is difficult to hold that the requirements of this rule were adhered to and charge-sheet and the statement of allegations delivered to the petitioner.
9. Upon this record, the learned counsel for the respondents did not have much to support the service of the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations, but contended that the finding given by the tribunals below in this behalf, being a finding of fact, cannot be disturbed in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
10. There is little merit in this argument. It is well settled that when a special tribunal, which is a final Judge on a question of fact, acts on no B evidence, it renders its orders liable to be removed through judicial review. Before the tribunals below the petitioner persistently agitated that the charge-sheet was not served on him but his this plea was brushed aside by them without adverting to the record.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents then came forth with another submission resting on Article 212 of the Constitution to urge that the Service Tribunal's order is appealable before the Supreme Court and as another adequate remedy is available to the petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable.
12. This argument does not deserve any serious consideration, for, under Article 212, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court only if the, case involves a substantial question of law of public importance.
However, the instant case does not present any such question of law of public importance but nevertheless it being an order based on no evidence and also violative of the mandatory provision of the Police Rules, is liable to be struck down in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
13. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders declared to have been passed without lawful, authority. It shall be open to the Department to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.