MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J.----Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner , Muhammad Yaqoob, impugns the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the respondent, whereby minor penalty of "withholding of 4 annual increments for a specific period of four years i.e. 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019" was imposed on him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applicable Rules of the Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan ("H.D.I.P .") are statutory in nature inasmuch as the same were made by the Federal Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22 of the Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan Act, 2006 ("H.D.I.P . Act") and that the same were duly gazetted on 14.1 1.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner were not in accordance with the law inasmuch as the statement of allega tions explaining the charge was never communicated to him as required by Rule 6(1) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 ("E&D Rules") ; that in the show-cause notice dated 31.12.2015, the petitioner was asked whether he desired to be heard in-person or otherwise; that even though the petitioner , in his letter dated 12.01.2016, requested for an opportunity to be heard in-person but such an opportunity was denied to him; that the petitioner was not associated in the inquiry proceedings which formed the basis 'for the imposition of the said penalty; and that the respondent took more than one year to decide the petitioner's appeal through an un-reasoned order . Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed and for the original order dated '29.01.2016 as well as the appellate order dated 12.06.2017 to be set-aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for H.D.I.P . submitted that in the year 2015, the petitioner was involved in financial irregularities while serving as a Cashier; that instead of brining the matter regarding financial irregularities to the notice of the Management, the petitioner tried to protect the main accused; that in the inquiry report dated 22.12.2015, the findings against the petiti oner were inter alia that he had failed to adopt the proper procedure and had deposited a cheque in another bank account on the directions of his seniors; that the petitioner was not bound to comply with unlawful directions of his seniors; that the petitioner was proceeded against strictly in accordance with the provisions of the E&D Rules; that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing; that the petitioner appeared in the personal hearing but failed to give a satisfactory answer; that after showing leniency to the petitioner , only a minor penalty of withholding of four annual increments was imposed on him vide order dated 29.01.2016; that the petitioner's departmental appeal against the said order , was turned down by the Board of Governors of H.D.I.P . vide order dated 12.06.2 017; and that .the proceedings culminating in the imposition of the minor penalty on the petitioner did not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional infirmity . Learned counsel for H.D.I.P . prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22 of H.D.I.P . Act, the Federal Government made the Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan (Services and Financial) Rules, 2009 ("H.D.I.P . Rules"). Rule 13.1 of the said Rules provides that the Boar d of Governors shall prescribe regulations governing efficiency , conduct and discipline of employees, provided that until such regulations are enforced, the authority competent to appoint a person in service of H.D.I.P ., shall be competent to take any disciplinary action in accordance with the E&D Rules, and Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. It is an admitted position that till date, the Board of Governors of H.D.I.P . has not prescribe d regulations governing efficiency , conduct and discipline of H.D.I.P .'s employees. Therefore, until such regulations are prescribed, the E&D Rules will govern matters regarding efficiency , conduct and discipline of A H.D.I.P .'s employees.
7. The allegation against the petitioner was that in the year 2015, while he was serving as a Cashier , he had deposited a cheque in a wrong bank account on the directions of his seniors.
8. After financial irregularities in H.D.I.P .'s bank account came to the notice of the Director General, H.D.I.P ., an Internal Committee comprising of three officers, was constituted to scrutinize the record of H.D.I.P .'s bank account and to ascertain the financial irregularities . Two officers of H.D.I.P . namely , Muhammad Tahir Khan and Muhammad Faheemuddin, were suspended and with the approval of the competent authority , a twormember Inquiry Committee was also constituted to probe into the matter. The authorized officer had issued a charge sheet and statement of allegations to Muhammad Tahir Khan and Muhammad Faheemuddin. As per the inquiry report dated 22.12.2015, the charges of misappropriation levelled against Muhammad Tahir Khan stood proved, whereas role of Muhammad Faheemuddin was stated to be that of a facilitator . It was also stated that due to Muhammad Faheemuddin's disclosure, the department had been able to recover the amount in question.
9. As regards the petitioner , the findings of the Inquiry Committee against him were that he had committed a "deliberate mistake" by depositing a cheque in a wrong bank account on the instructions of his seniors . It was also stated in the inquiry report that the petition er had failed in his duty to adopt the proper procedure in such cases. He was recommended to be penalized under the E&D Rules.
10. As mentioned above, on 31.12.2015, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner , and his reply dated 12.01.2016 was found to be unsatisfactory , minor penalty of withholding four annual increments for a specific period was imposed on him vide impugned order dated 29.01.2016. The petitioner's departmental appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Board of Governors of H.D.I.P . on 12.06.2017.
11. Since it is an admitted position that the E&D Rules have been adopted by H.D.I.P ., the said Rules were required to be strictly adhered to while proceedings against an employee of H.D.I.P . There is nothing on the record to show that a charge sheet and statement of allegations was issued to the petitioner at any material stage. The inquiry report is also silent on the question as to whether any charge sheet or statement of allegations was issued by the authorized officer to the petitioner . Learned counsel for H.D.I.P . was given the opportunity to bring on record the charge sheet and statement of allegations issued to the petitioner but he did not do so. However , a charge sheet and statement of allegations were issued to Muhammad Tahir Khan and Muhamm ad Faheemuddin in the matter but not to the petitioner .
12. Rule 6(1) of the E&D Rules provid es that where Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee is appointed, the authorized officer shall frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with statement of allegations explaining the charge and of any other relevant circumstances which are proposed to be taken into consideration.
13. The whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations was to give all the necessary particulars and details which satisfied the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put up a defence. The departmental proceedings against the petitioner show a complete disregard for the mandatory requirement in Rule 6(1) of the E&D Rules. There is nothing on the recor d to show that a regular inquiry against the petitioner was dispensed with.
I am in no manner of doubt that the petitioner was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself on account of absence of framing of a charge and the service of statement of allegations on him. As a natural corollary , the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be held to be in conformity with the requirements of the E&D Rules, and therefore such proceedings ought to be declared as unlawful rendering the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 to be a nullity . In holding so, reliance is placed on the following case law:-
14. In the case of Muhammad Ismail Shahid v. Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore (2008 SCMR 609), it was held that inquiry proceedings conducted in absence of mandatory requirement of service of statement of allegations on a civil servant would be void and a nullity in the eyes of law .
15. In the case of Shams-ud-Din Khawajr v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2003 SC 187), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after making reference to Rule 6 of the E&D Rules, held as follows:- "There is no cavil to the proposition that under this rule, a full-fledged inquiry is to be made whereby an authorised officer is required to frame a charge and inform the accused Government servant of the statement of allegations against him. Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 6 clearly stipulate that the accused-officia l shall be provided not less than 7 or more than 14 claw period to put in his written defence to the charges. Sub-rule (3) entitles him to produce in defence oral or documentary evidence and also to cross-examine the witnesses against him. Mere factum of taking in hand inquiry proceedings under the Rules against a civil servant cannot be equated with the procedure prescribed in the above mentioned sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 6."
16. In the case of Tariq Mehmood v. District Police Officer (PLD 2008 SC 451), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after making reference to Rules 5 and 6 of the E&D Rules, held as follows:- "A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions lead to the conclusion that no major penalty can be imposed on a Government Servant unless his guilt is properly inquired into by appointing an Inquiry Officer or an Inquiry Committee within the purview of rule 5 of the E&D Rules, 1973 and the accused is served with a proper show- cause notice or charge sheet containing statement of allegations on which the penalty is proposed to be inflicted.
Law is well-settled in this regard."
17. In the case of Khuda-i-Nazar v. The Curator (2000 SCMR 1743 ), it was held that the framing of charge and its communication along with the statement of allegations is not a mere formality but a mandatory pre-requisite which was to be followed. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the case of Major Muhammad Nawaz v. Pakistan through Secretary Communications, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad (PLD 1970 Lahore 811), wherein it was held as follows:- "The provisions of the rules that the authority having power to impose the penalty shall frame a charge and communicate it to the accused togethe r with a statement of the allegations on which it based and of other circumstances which the authority proposes to take into consideration are mandatory . Non-compliance with such provisions would amount to transgression of on obligatory rule which lays down the minimum standards comprising reasonable opportunity to be afforded to a Government servant. 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. Where the charges are vague and are not accompanied by a statement of allegations this causes prejudice to the official concerned because he is deprived of information as to the basis on which the charges have been framed against him and the other circumstances which were taken into consideration when passing orders."
18. As regarded the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's request for a personal hearing had not been acceded to, learned counsel for H.D.I.P . submitted that on 10.12.2015, the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of a hearing. Now, in the show-cause notice dated 31.12.2015 issued by H.D.I.P . to the petitioner , the latter was asked whether he desired to be heard in-person. The said show-cause notice was issued by the authorized officer. The petitioner , in his response dated 12.01.2016 to the said show cause notice, requested for an opportunity to be heard in-person. Although an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the Inquiry Committee on 10.12.2015, this was prior to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 31.12.2015. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner's request to be heard in-person was acceded to by the authorized officer. This is an added reason why the impugned order dated 29.01.2016 ought to be set- aside.
19. Learned counsel for H.D.I.P . had submitted that in the prayer clause of writ petition, although the petitioner had challenged the original order dated 29.01 .2016 but had not challenged the appellate order dated 12.06.2017. The petitioner , in his writ petition, has specifically made reference to the petitioner's departmental appeal and has pleaded that the appeal was rejected in a mechanical manner without recording any reasons and without providing an opportunity of a defence/personal hearing to him. This Court is to look at the substance of the petition and not its form. A read of the entire petition shows that the petitioner was also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 12.06.2017, and had set out the grounds for a challenge to the said order . The mere fact that the appellate order is not referred to in the prayer clause is a mere technical omission and does not pose as an obstacle before this Court in setting the same aside. In the case of Clifton and Defence Traders Welfare Association through General Secretary v. President Clifton, Cantonment Board (2003 PLD Karachi 495), it has been held inter alia that Courts are sanctuaries of justice not to be persua ded by technicalities and whenever circumstances require them to act in aid of justice, relief can be molded in a manner that may serve the cause of justice and suppress the mischief.
Furthermore, in the cases of Walt Dad v. Mst. Tasneem Kausar (1999 CLC 163), FazI ur Rehman v. Youtius Ali Gillani (1999 MLD 1565 ), and PK Muhammad v. Karachi Building Control Authority (2003 YLR 1547 ), it has been held that a prayer clause is not be read in isolation, and that a Court while granting the relief could dispense with technicalities and mold relief if the dictates of justice so demand.
20. The petitioner , in his departmental appeal against the minor penalty imposed on him, vide order dated 29.01.2016, specifically raised the ground as to the non-issuance of the statement of allegations as well as the opportunity of personal hearing being denied to him by the authorized officer. The appellate order dated 12.06.2017 other than being bereft of reasons does not advert to the said grounds taken in the petitioner's departmental appeal. This is reason enough to set-aside the appellate order dated 12.06.2017.
21. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed . The original order dated 29.01.2016 as well as the appellate order dated 12.06.2017 are set-aside. However , H.D.I.P . shall be at liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry in the matter against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law , if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.