1. ' MORTAR ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant was working as Tapedar in Settlement Organization, District Khairpur. The allegation against him was that in January, 1972 he demanded and accepted illegal gratification from two parties for mutation of the record in respect of sale of agricultural land. The sale took place in 1972 and the record so alleged was taken by the Tapedar and kept away by him upto February, 1976 but still the mutation was not affected. The matter was reported to the Anti-Corruption Department who after investigation recommended that the case be dealt with departmentally. The appellant WAS meanwhile transferred by the Board of Revenue from Khairpur to Larkana District. The Deputy Commissioner, Larkana served charge-sheet dated 20th February, 1976 on the appellant as the Authorized Officer and appointed Assistant Commissioner, Kambar as Enquiry Officer. After the receipt of the report the appellant was removed from service by an order dated 11th July, 1978. The appellant then preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Sukkur Division who declined to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant then came before this Tribunal and filed the appeal on 24th October, 1978.
2. ' It has been argued by Mr. Rasool Bux Unar on behalf of the appellant that no penalty was specified in the charge-sheet served on the appellant and copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was also not supplied to the appellant. He ultimately obtained the copy on payment after his departmental appeal was dismissed. That no show-cause notice was served on the appellant after the report of the Enquiry Officer and the final orders were straightaway passed without affording an opportunity to the appellant of being heard.
3. ' It has recently been observed by the Supreme Court in Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W. F. P.
4. Government (1) as under :- "After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we have formed the view that in a case where formal enquiry is held, it seems to be an implicit requirement of the relevant rules that a copy of the enquiry report should be furnished to the accused official so as to enable him to offer his explanation with regard to the adverse findings, if any, recorded against him by the Enquiry Officer or the Enquiry Committee, as the case may be Such a requirement cannot be brushed aside by saying that it would amount to a second show- cause notice.
5. ' In reaching this conclusion, we are fortified in our view by the fact that in sub-rule (2), which embodies the shorter procedure for dealing-with disciplinary matters it is clearly contemplated that the Authorized Officer shall inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of action ; and shall give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action. There seems to be no logical reason for denying the accused officer a similar opportunity in a case where' formal enquiry is held in terms of rule 6 read with sub-rule (2) of rule 5.
6. This stage is reached in the= case of a formal enquiry only after the enquiry has been completed and the Authorized Officer has formulated his views in the light of the enquiry report."
7. The Supreme Court accordingly observed that in cases where formal enquiry is held, not only copy of the enquiry report is to be supplied to the accused but he should be apprised of the action proposed to be recommended against him and he should be given an opportunity of furnishing an explanation. That failure to do so invalidates the recommendations of the Authorized Officer and the ultimate order passed on that basis by the Authority against the accused.
8. ' In the present case the copy of the report was admittedly not furnished to the accused nor was he apprised of the action proposed to be taken against him and he was given no opportunity of being heard in respect of the recommendations of the Authorized Officer.
9. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of removal passed against the appellant, leaving it open to the relevant authorities to proceed from the stage from which the error could be {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1981 SC 176 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' corrected ; namely by supplying a copy of findings of Enquiry Officer to enable the appellant to submit his explanation in regard to the material brought against him during the enquiry proceedings and the opinion formed in respect thereof by the Enquiry Officer, as well as the action proposed to be recommended by the Enquiry Officer. Since the order passed against the appellant was apparently not in accordance with the legal requirements, it is directed under section 18 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, that the appellant shall be entitled to his full pay and allowances as may be found due to him from the date of removal upto the date of this order.