1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner, a member of the Police Service of Pakistan, was dismissed from service, on 26th November, 1975. He filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. This was accepted as it was found that the dismissal of the petitioner was based on a report made after some informal inquiry against the allegation of the misconduct against him and the procedure adopted not being countenanced either under sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, the order of dismissal could not be sustained.
2. ' The petitioner was thereupon re-instated into service by Establishment Division's Notification No, 14/1/78-C. II (A), dated 8th July, 1979, but was then suspended by the same notification.
3. ' He was thereafter, served with a charge-sheet regarding imposition of a major penalty and a summary of allegations. A full-fledged inquiry was also held. In short, he was proceeded against under sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973..
4. ' It appears that the Inquiry Officer exonerated him of the charge but the authorised Officer disagreed with his conclusion and recommended the penalty of removal from service. The Authority, however, decided to dismiss him from service. On a review petition the punishment was, however, reduced to one of "removal from service".
5. ' Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the petitioner after a lenghty address ultimately referred to this Court's decision in Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W. F. P. Government through Chief Secretary , wherein the true import of sub-rule (4) of rule 5 has been clarified in the light of all the relevant rules, as follows:- "It seems to us, therefore, that on a proper construction of rules 5 and 6 read together, it is statutory requirement that if a formal inquiry 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 finding of the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee,1 before sending his recommendations to the Authority. This would, of course, necessitate that a copy of the inquiry report be furnished to the accused Officer at this stage, and he should be apprised on the action proposed against him."
6. It is pointed out that the petitioner was not afforded any such opportunity after the Authorised Officer had decided upon the action he proposed to recommend to the Authority to take against him.
7. ' This contention, inter alia, requires further consideration. Leave to appeal is, accordingly granted.
8. ' Security in the sum of Rs, 2,500 for costs of the respondents shall be furnished. PLD 1981 SC 1976