ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Muhammad Iqbal (Ex-Patwari) has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar Sub---Division, Mianwali as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 3-4-1982 of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar Sub--Division, Mianwali dated 22-I1-1981, ordering the removal from service of the appellant, be set aside, and the appellant be re-instated in service with all benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one- Mst. 4Sabhai widow of Haibat, resident of Sandanwala village Harnoli, Tehsil and District Mian--wali complained to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division alleging that Muhammad Iqbal who was then posted as Patwari Halqa Harnoli, in connivance with the Field Kanungo, got her landed property measuring 111 kanals, situated in village Harnoli mutated fraudulently in the names of his relatives. The application was sent to the Deputy Commissioner.
Mianwali who, after getting the matter enquired into by the E. A. C. (R) vide his memo. No. 2319/SK, dated 30-7-1980 asked the S. O./ Collector, Bhakkar to place the appellant under suspension and also to initiate departmental proceedings against him. The S. O./Collector, Thal, Bhakkar vide his order dated 30-7-1980, charge-sheeted the appellant. The E. A. S. O., Bhakkar was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who conducted a detailed enquiry and reported that the charge levelled against the appellant stood proved. The S. O./Collector; Bhakkar after considering the enquiry report and hearing the appellant, vide his order dated 15-2-1981, dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order dated 15-2-198:, passed by the S. O./Collector, Thal, Bhakkar, to the Commissioner. Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was accepted on 5-9-1981 and the case was remanded to the AC/Collector, Mianwali for initiating action against the appellant on the basis of the enquiry report of the E. A. E. O., Bhakkar. It was further directed that the A. C., Mianwali may obtain a report from the S. O./Thai, Bhakkar and issue a notice to the appellant under rule 8 of the Efficiency and Dis--cipline Rules. In compliance with the order dated 5-9-1981, passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, the Assistant Commissioner, appointed E. A. C., Mianwali, as Authorised Officer to proceed against the appellant who, after considering the facts of the case, dispensed with the enquiry and straightaway served the appellant with a show-cause notice under rule 6 (3) (b). The Authorised Officer, after considering the written reply to the show- cause notice, vide his report dated 24-10-1981, recommended imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mianwali after considering the report submitted by the Authorised Officer and after hearing the appellant, vide his impugned order removed the appellant from service. The appellant filed an appeal with the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which was rejected vide his order dated 31-4-1982.
Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued this case and has raised legal objection that the show-cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Sadar Sub-Division, Mianwali (Annexure `E') clearly shows that the appellant was charged with corruption but no regular enquiry was held in this case to afford an opportunity to the appellant to defend himself.
This show-cause notice mentions that the authorised officer had dispensed with the formal enquiry and served the appellant with a show-cause notice under rule 6 (3) of Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that being a corruption case, the proceedings in this case have not been conducted properly, no regular enquiry was held as required under the efficiency and discipline rules, the appellant was not afforded the oppor--tunities to defend himself. Thus, the impugned order of his removal from service is illegal and void. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney argued that the charges were prima facie established against the appellant. Thus, the issue of show-cause notice under section 6 (3) of Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 was in order, as in the opinion of the Authorised Officer, conducting of a regular enquiry was not necessary. Thus the appellant has been proceeded correctly and law--fully, under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 19.75.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record .Of this case. We find that it has been clearly mentioned in the show-cause, notice (Annexure `E') given by the Assistant Commissioner Collector, Sadar Sub-Division, Mianwali vide his No. 2565/AC/HC dated 27th October 1981, that the charges of misconduct and corruption have been proved, thus the appellant was held guilty of corruption. Keeping in view the earlier judgments of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that a regular enquiry is must in case where an accused person is held guilty of corruption ; a regular enquiry should have been conducted against the appellant. We find in this case that no regular enquiry has been held and the appellant was not afforded opportunities to defend himself, by dispensing with the enquiry by the Authorised Officer. Keeping the above facts in view we hold that proper procedure as laid down in rule 6 (4) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 has not been followed.
6. In view of the above analysis, the impugned orders so prayed are set aside and we remand this case to the competent authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of Civil Servant (E & D) Rules, 1975, by keeping in view our observations made in para. 5 above. The appellant is ordered to be re-instated in service to bestow upon him the status of civil servants for enabling the "Authority" and the "Authorised Officer" to proceed against him. The period from the date of his removal from service to that of re-instatement in service be treated as an extraordinary leave without pay.
There will be no order as to costs.