ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Messrs Mumtaz Ahmad, ex-Dehi Karkun and Abdul- Ghani, ex-Project Manager of Local Government Rural Development Department, Punjab, Lahore, have made these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein they have impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore, as respondent.
2. Since the impugned order dated 14-10.1981/26-10-1981 passed by the respondent is same for both of the appellants and these appeals involve similar points of law and facts, as such, these appeals are being disposed of by a single judgment.
3. By virtue of these appeals, the appellants have prayed that the impugned order of Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Local Govern--ment and Rural Development Department No. SOI(RD)6(35) 79, dated 14-10-1981 endorsed on 26-10-1981 be set aside and the appellants be re- instated into service with all back benefits.
4. Brief facts of the cases are that Messrs Mumtaz Ahmad and Abdul Ghani were working in the Local Government and Rural Develop--ment Department as Dehi Karkun (Rural Development Worker) and Project Manager, respectively. Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad was served with a charge-sheet by Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, received by him on 26-11-1980. Similarly Mr. Abdul Ghani was charge-sheeted by the same Authorised Officer on identical charges and the charge-sheet was served to him on 22-10-1980 through Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. A joint enquiry was ordered against both of the above appellants on account of certain irregularities committed by them. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Bahawalnagar was appointed as Enquiry Officer who submitted his enquiry report to the Authorised Officer. The Authorised Officer recommended the action to be taken against the appellants to the authority i.e. Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department. The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department removed both of the appellants from service with immediate effect vide his impugned order No. SOI (RD)6(35)/79, dated 14-10-1981/ 26-10-1981. The appellants made review petitions dated 18-11-1981 and 21-11-1981, respectively which were rejected vide order No. SOI
(RD) 6 (35)
79. Dated 6-1-1982. Hence these appeals.
5. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued and has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W. F. P. Government through Chief Secretary (PLD1981SC176). It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the accused officer is required to be supplied copy of enquiry report by the 'Authorised Officer, and would be provided an opportunity to submit his explanation with regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer which were adverse to him ; and he would be apprised of the action proposed by him to be recom--mended against him, In the cases of the appellants, it was argued by the counsel of the appellants that the appellants were never provided the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, they were not asked to explain their position by the `Authorised Officer' regarding action 'proposed to be taken against them and thus the recommendations so made against the appellants by the 4Authorised Officer' to the Authority are unjustified, unlawful and invalid, keeping in view the clear cut verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
6. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that it is clear from the impugned order of the respondent that the appellants were heard in person by the Authority and they were given chance to explain their position before the impugned order of their removal from service was passed. Thus the requirements of the rules have been met and the opportunities to the appellants to defend themselves have been provided. The impugned order passed by the competent authority is thus lawful and justified.
7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the parties and have also consulted the record carefully, so produced by the Department. We have gone through letter No. LG/E/4280, dated 13-4-1981, recommendations of the Director, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur (Authorised Officer) addressed to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore (Authority), wherein the recommendations have been made by the 'Authorised Officer' for imposing the major penalties to the appellants. It is clear from this letter that the appellants were not provided copy of the enquiry report for providing an opportunity to submit their explanation with regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also they were not apprised of the action proposed to be recommended against them by the A "Authorised Officer." Thus the recommendations by the `Authorised Officer' were made to the `Authority' without observing the requirements of the rules. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W. F. P. Government through Chief Secretary, which reads at page 187, paras. 1 and 2 as under :- ----It seems to us, therefore, that on a proper construction of rules 5 and 6 read together, it is a statutory requirement that if a formal enquiry is held, then the Authorised Officer should, after he has tentatively decided upon the action he proposes to recommend to the Authority, give an opportunity to the accused officer to offer his explanation against the proposed action in the light of the findings of the Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee, before sending his recommendations to the Authority. This, would, of course, necessitate that a copy of the enquiry report be furnished to the accused officer at this stage, and he should be apprised of the action proposed against him.
Keeping above judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan in view and also keeping our earlier judgment in Case No. 271/1753 of 1982 in case of Jullion Michael Gill v. Director, Excise do Taxation, Sargodha and an--other, we agree that the appellants have not been provided proper opportunities to defend themselves as laid down in the above judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan because the `Authorised Officer' failed e to provide the copy of the enquiry report, call for explanation of the appellants, did not apprise them of the action to be proposed against them and requirements of the rules were not met with before making his recommendations for imposing major penalty to the Authority.
8. Keeping in view the above analysis, the impugned orders are set aside and the cases of the appellants are remanded to the authority to proceed against the appellants keeping in view the observation of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the rules. The appellants are ordered to be re- instated in service to bestow upon them the status of civil servants to enable the competent authority to proceed against them afresh. The period from the date of their removal from service to that of the date of their re-instatement will be considered as extraordinary leave, without pay.
There will be no order as to costs.