1. ' The facts of the case are that appellant Ghulam Hyder Shaikh, Overseer in the Provincial Buildings Division, Larkana, was served with a show-cause notice by Superintending Engineer Provincial Building Circle, Khairpur, Respondent. No, 1 on 28th September, 1980 wherein it was alleged that be was guilty of misconduct as per the following details :- "That while posted as Overseer in Provincial Buildings Division, Larkana, he made anonymous applications containing false, malacious and libellous allegations against the Senior Officers.- ' It was also mentioned in the said show-cause notice by respondent No, I that he had decided that it was not necessary to have an enquiry conducted through an Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee in terms of rule 5 (3) of Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. It was stated that on the above ground it was proposed to impose all or any of penalties described in rule 4 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973.
2. ' The appellant Ghulam Hyder Shaikh furnished his reply on 5th October, 1980 wherein he totally denied having made any anonymous application and that he was being implicated on account of jealousy of colleagues. The appellant has inter alia pleaded that the allegations against the appellant are without any foundation, that the show-cause notice did not indicate specifically the particulars of the anonymous application or contents thereof that even he was not shown the anonymous application alleged to have been made by him and that he was unable to show cause as he was not specifically informed of the grounds or facts on the basis of which the allegation was attributed to him.
3. ' On 23rd February, 1981 respondent No, 2 Chief Engineer, Buildings Department, Hyderabad, issued an order whereby Ghulam Hyder Shaikh was dismissed from service on the recommendation of Respondent No, I.
4. The appellant filed a departmental appeal on 19th March, 1981. Thereafter he filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 22nd June, 1981. The appeal having been filed after 90 days of the departmental appeal and within 120 days of the original impugned order dated 23rd February, 1981, hence the appeal is in time.
5. ' The written statement filed on behalf of the Government revealed that action had been taken against the appellant because corrections made in and on a typed pseudonymous application were of libellous character and were on comparison with a letter of the appellant found to be in the handwriting of the one and the same person. Therefore the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant. Subsequently the pseudonymous application and the letter in the handwriting of the appellant were sent to one Mr. A. B. Chagtai, who claimed to be a handwriting expert. The said handwriting expert gave a verdict that the handwriting of the two documents was of one and the same person. He gave no reasons for the opinion nor did he supply any enlarged prints or photographs to show that he had made a proper comparison. Nevertheless on receipt of the report of the handwriting expert the order dismissing the appellant from service was passed. At no stage the appellant was shown the material of which he has been found guilty. He has not even been informed that the opinion of the handwriting expert has been obtained and that the punishment was sought to be justified on the basis of such report.
6. The matter was heard at length. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the dismissal order was bad in law for the reasons that the mandatory provisions of rule 5 (3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 had not been observed. Since it has been decided to dispense with an enquiry it was necessary to inform the accused "of the grounds of the action" and give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action. In this case the accused officer was confronted with only a single sentence that while posted as Overseer in Provincial Buildings Division, Larkana he made annonymous applications containing false, malacious and libellous allegations against the Senior Officers. No grounds or details have been communicated, thereby not affording him reasonable opportunity of showing cause. It was also argued that the order dated 28th September, 1980 from respondent No, I which purports to be a show-cause notice is therefore not a show-cause notice in terms of rule 5 (3) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973.
7. ' It was also argued that the requirements of rule 5 (4) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 had not been complied with inasmuch as the statement of allegations had not been prepared.
8. ' The counsel for the appellant referred to the opinion of a Handwriting and Finger Print Expert Mr. A.
9. B. Chagtai of Pakistan Chowk, Karachi, submitted alongwith written statement and pointed out that the opinion had been obtained after the show-cause notice which vitiated its value altogether. He further argued that no reason has been given by the said expert who has simply made a subjective statement that in his opinion that the writing tallies. He also challenged the authenticity of the said expert who has shown no qualifications.
10. ' The A. A.-G. Stated that he relied on the written statement as per his instructions from the department. He however, did not deny the legal lacuna pointed out by the counsel for the appellant.
11. ' It is observed that this is a case of dismissal from service while dispensing with the enquiry procedure on the allegation of having made an annonymous application. The department has submitted a copy of D.
0. Letter from respondent No 1 Superintending Engineer, Provincial Buildings Circle-II, Hyderabad addressed to respondent No, 2 Chief Engineer Buildings Hyderabad wherein he has narrated how he suspected the accused officer. It is noted that in the said letter he has mentioned a chain of anonymous letters/white papers whereas in the instant case only one white paper has been produced which too is typed with only minor typographical corrections in handwriting. It is on the basis of these minor typographical corrections in handwriting that respondent No, 1 has come to the conclusion that these are in the hands of Mr. Ghulam Hyder Shaikh, Sub-Engineer appellant.
12. This obviously is inadequate for the purpose of comparison of handwritings. It may be also noted here that this suspected handwriting has been compared with a congratulatory letter written a few days before by the appellant to respondent No, I on his approval for Grade 20. It appears a case of mere suspicion.
13. ' It has been seen that even the white paper, which in fact is pseudonymous and not anonymous was not shown to the appellant. In fact as can be seen in this case there is no evidence and hence no statement of allegations with the result that no incriminating material has been communicated to the accused officer. It goes without saying that it is simply C not possible or practicable to show cause in the absence of communication of any incriminating material. In the case of Muzaffar Hussain Shah v. Government of Sind (Appeal No, 124 of 1975), decided by this Tribunal as recently as 2nd May, 1982, it was observed that :- "When an Authority proposes to dismiss or reduce in rank a member of the Civil Service he shall be given an opportunity of putting his case against the proposed action and the opportunity has to be a reasonable opportunity. The grounds of action have to be mentioned with clarity and wherever necessary the charges should be definite with full particulars and the evidence on which the charges are based should also be stated so that the accused officer should have sufficient opportunity to refute the charges. Mere asking for an explanation is not sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement. If the charges are based on any document or report the copy of the same must be furnished to the Accused Officer to enable him to effectively meet the allegations contained in the charges."
14. ' In the cases of Lal Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam where action has been taken on a vague show-cause notice, the Supreme Court had observed that : "As the show-cause notices were thus in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (3), they were illegal and on this ground alone, the proceedings initiated against the appellants have to be set aside."
15. The opinion of the stated handwriting expert and the mode in which it has been obtained appears questionable. Be that as it may, the opinion of an expert can at the most be used as a corroborating piece of evidence. It cannot be permitted to take the place of substantive evidence, not a shred of which appears to have been available with the Department in this case.
16. ' In the result, since the order of dismissal could not be legally sustained it is set aside. The appellant is to be reinstated in service and paid the arrears of salary for the intervening period from the date of dismissal until reinstatement. No order is made as to costs.