' MALIK ZAWWAR Huss/km (MEMBER).-Bukhtawar Ali, ex-Chowkidar, Government Polytechnic Institute, Sahiwal has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director, Technical Education, Punjab Lahore and the Principal, Government Polytechnic Institute, Sahiwal as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he was prayed that the order, dated 3rd May, 1982 and order dated 28th August, 1982 passed by the respondents No, 2 and 1 respectively be set aside and he be re-instated into service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as Chowkidar under respondent No, 2 he was served with a show-cause notice, dated 5th April, 1982 presumably under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 calling upon him to show cause as to why he would not be removed from service on the allegations which are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience :-
(i) That on 6th February, 1982 you made a statement before the undersigned that Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Latif Chowkidars have made applications for the allotment of Government Quarters but their applications were ignored and instead the quarters were allotted to Muhammad Zakir, Shop attendant in which he would keep his buffalos, although the aforesaid Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Latif Chowkidars had never made any such applications.
Thus, your statement was incorrect.
(ii) That on 2nd April, 1982 you left the headquarter for your village without any permission from the competent authority or any intimation to him and returned back to duty on 3rd April, 1982 at 11-00 a. m.
(iii) That your previous service record reveals that you are habitual of dereliction in duties and of misconduct and that you were also warned on different occasions. You have not improved your conduct thus it appears that you have become inefficient for the performance of your duties.
' Although the appellant was called upon to file his written defence within two weeks yet the appellant did not file any reply although he received the said notice on 15th April, 1982. As such the respondent No, 2 being the authority/authorised officer served a notice, dated 20th April, 1982 as envisaged in rule 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules calling upon the appellant to furnish his defence and appear for personal hearing. In the said notice 8 charges were alleged against the appellant which are again reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference :-
(i) Grave carelessness and indolence in the performance of duty.
(ii) To remain absent without sanction of leave.
(iii) To correspond with the higher officers unnecessarily.
(iv) To take opium during duty hours.
(v) To disobey official orders.
(vi) To leave the headquarters without permission.
(vii) To propogate against the higher authorities.
(viii) That today on 20th April, 1982 a letter was sent to you but you are found absent from the Institution and however, you are present at your house. When two officials of the Institution called on your house, you shut the doors from inside. Thus, it is clear that you had intentionally avoided to acknowledge the official letter.
' It seems that the appellant again did not submit any explanation or avail the opportunity of personal hearing as such the respondents passed an ex parte order whereby he removed the appellant from service vide his order, dated 3rd May, 1982. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the respondent No, 1, which was rejected. Hence this appeal.
3. We have beard the appellant as well as the Learned District Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondents. It has been argued by the appellant that he has been condemned unheard. It has been further argued that the allegations contained in the show-cause notice/chargesheet and the notice, dated 21st April, 1982 are contradictory to each other inasmuch as that in the later notice new allegations have been introduced without any justification. It has further been submitted that the allegations levelled against him required regular enquiry which has wrongly been dispensed with by the respondent No,
2. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant has been proceeded against, strictly in accordance with the rules and that there was no alternative left with the respondent No, 2 but to pass an ex parte order against the appellant because he failed to furnish any defence, against the allegations levelled against the appellant.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record and the documents filed by the principal before us during the course of arguments. When the charge-sheet (show-cause notice) dated 5th April, 1982 and 20th April, 1982 are placed in juxta-position with each other and are compared together, it would become abundantly clear that in the earlier notice, only three charges were levelled against the appellant while in the second show-cause notice, dated 20th April, 1982, 8 allegations have been levelled against the appellant which also included extraneous matters which were not present in the earlier notice. We may also observe here that while issuing the notice dated 20th April, 1982 for personal hearing, an instance of the A said date has also been made the basis of the said notice which was used as one of reasons for his removal from service. This sort of hasty step on the part of the respondent No, 2 was unjustified and unreasonable. If at all the said Principal wanted to proceed against the appellant in the said allegations he could have taken proceeding as envisaged in Rules 5 to 8 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. This sort of procedure adopted by the Departmental authorities is to be depreciated. It seems that while removing the appellant from service, the respondent No, 2 has been swa yed by extraneous consideration, because had it not been so, he would have definitely confined himself only to the allegations as contained in the charge-sheet, dated 5th April, 1982. We may also observe here that the allegations given at Sr. Nos, 1 to 7 in show-cause notice dated 20th April, 1982 are not specific and are general in nature. It was bounded duty of the respondent No, 2 to have given the details of the allegations against the appellant to enable him to offer bis defence to plead his innocence. Since these allegations were general in nature, so it must have become difficult for the appellant to file his written defence. From the perusal of the impugned orders, dated 3rd May, 1982 it is admittedly clear that the appellant was removed from service summarily by way of ex parte proceedings. The only ground for passing the order is that the appellant had failed to file the reply to the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice. We are afraid that in view of the nature of the allegations this sort of reasoning for removal from service is unjust and against the principle of the natural justice and the law. The Departmental authorities should have appreciated the evidence against the appellant in order to see if the allegations were proved against him or not. Thus, we hold that the impugned orders are unjust and have been passed in undue haste, without complying the legal formalities which also included the appointment of an Enquiry Officer for enquiring into the charges.
5. In view of the above analysis we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The appellant shall be re-instated into service in order to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant.
The Departmental authorities are at liberty to proceed against the appellant de novo strictly in accordance with the rules if they are so advised. The intervening period from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement be treated as leave of kind due. There will be no order as to costs.