' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Ghulam Nabi ex-Junior Clerk, office of the Relief Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Relief Commissioner, Board of Revenue Punjab, ashore and the Director, Planning and Administration, Office of the chief Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 24th June, 1982 passed by respondent No, 2 and the order dated 7th September, 1982 passed by respondent No, 1 be set aside, and the appellant be declared to be continuous in service with all back benefits of service/remunerations.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice, while working as Junior Clerk/office of the Relief Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, by Mr. Muhammad Azam, Assistant Director (Admn.), on 18th May, 1982. He filed reply on 8th June, 1982 but the same was considered un-satisfactory and was removed from service with immediate effect, vide order, dated 24th June, 1982. On an appeal before the Relief commissioner Punjab, the same was considered by him but was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has come up with a plea that according to the show-cause notice the appellant was charged for eight counts. Which definitely involved serious allegations and recording of evidence to prove the same. According to the learned counsel, the appellant could not be dismissed by adopting procedure under section 6(3) on dispensing with the enquiry, which is an act of great injustice and the appellant has been condemned without being given an opportunity to defend himself. We have examined the show-cause notice and find that allegation No, I relates to the fact of absence from duty, without permission and tampering with the attendance register by changing the cross-marks into presence in the presence of Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Shah, Audit and Accounts Assistant. For this allegation, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to examine the only witness so cited against him Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Shah, but this has not been done so. Similarly charge No, 2 relates to the use of abusive language by the appellant against Muhammad Suleman, S. A. S. Accountant in the presence of Messrs. Ashfaq Ali Assistant and Muhammad 'dress, Naib Qasid. We also find that these two witnesses were not examined to prove the allegation so levelled against him. Similarly charge No, 3 relates to objectionable language used by the appellant against Sardar Ali, Assistant and Muhammad Suleman, S. A. S. Accountant, but the complainants were never called to give their statements and the appellant was never involves a chance to cross-examine the same. Charge No, 4 also involves recording of evidence and particularly allegation No, 8 that the appellant attemped to break and unlock the official steel almirah of Muhammad Suleman, S. A. S. Accountant in the afternoon of 8th March, 1982 or in early hours of 9th March, 1982 in order to steal the record of disciplinary cases and offered bribe to Messrs Muhammad Rashid and Muhammad Ali, Naib Qasids, definitely and positively required that evidence should have been recorded to prove the very serious allegation so levelled against him.
6. v In view of the above we have no hesitation to hold that the competent authority had no justification to deal summarily with this case by dispensing with a regular enquiry, and hereby remand the case to hi to conduct a regular enquiry against the appellant as envisaged under the rules and to allow him adequate chance to defend himself. The appellant is hereby re-instated in service in order to clothe him with the status of a civil servant for the purpose of such enquiry but he will get no remuneration for the period, he remained out of service. There will be no order as to costs. The judgment be communicated to the parties.