' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Malik Muhammad Aslam has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Government of Punjab through Secretary Forestry and Wildlife Department, Lahore and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Northern Zone, Rawalpindi as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order No, 42/C C. F., dated 9th January, 1983 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, respondent No, 2 be declared illegal, without lawful authority and without jurisdiction. He has further prayed that these impugned orders be set aside and the appellant be declared to be continuing in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Malik Muhammad Aslam, was serving as Range Officer in the Northern Forest Zone, Rawalpindi at Kahuta. In consequence of a raid by the Anti- Corruption Police he was arrested. Later on, he was tried by the Summary Military Court No, 75, Rawalpindi and was given sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. This sentence was subsequently reduced to six months as ordered by the HQ. M. L. A., Sector 5, Rawalpindi. On receipt of information about the above judgment of the Summary Military Court, through the Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Rawalpindi, vide letter, dated 30th October, 1982, the appellant was dismissed from service by the C. C. F., Northern Zone, Rawalpindi, vide his order No, 42/C. C. F., dated 9th January, 1983. The appellant made an appeal before the respondent No, 1 on 4th April, 1983 which is still pending and has not been disposed off, though a period of 90 days have since elapsed. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that a reliance be made to the parawise comments submitted by the respondents on this appeal of the appellant where it has been clearly laid down by the respondents as follows : - "The rule 9 of P. C. S. (E & D) Rules, 1975 is reproduced below :-
(1) Where a civil servant is convicted of offence involving moral turpitude, which has led to a sentence of fine or imprisonment, he may, after being given a show-cause notice, be dismissed, removed from service or reduced in rank without following the procedure, laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8.
(2) Where the authority is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded in writing it is not reasonably practicable to give the accused civil servant an opportunity of showing cause, it may impose any of the penalties under these rules without following the procedure laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8."
It is clear from the above rule 9, sub-rule (1), that the respondent No, 2, was bound to issue show- cause notice to the appellant. However, under sub-rule (2) of the same rule it is provided that issuance of show-cause notice can be dispensed with only where the authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that is not "reasonably practicable" to give such opportunity. In this case the authority has advanced the only reason in his impugned order, dated 9th January, 1983 for not issuing the show-cause notice that the accused civil servant was at the relevant time in jail and the formality of issue of show-cause notice could not be observed. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reason given by the authority, respondent No, 2, is not convincing, as it was practicable for him to serve him with show-cause notice either through registered post or through the Superintendent of Jail concerned or at least to issue the show-cause notice to the appellant at his residential address so that the relatives of the appellant could have delivered the same to the appellant, But the respondent No, 2 did not adopt any of these modes and he did not make any effort whatsoever to serve the -appellant with show-cause notice as laid down in the aforesaid rules. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order, dated 9th January, 1983 of respondent No, 2, is unlawful and unjustified as being contrary to the mandatory provisions of rule 9, ibid as quoted and relied upon by the respondents.
5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has also relied on the reason given in para. 2 of the impugned order, dated 9th January, 1983 passed by the respondent No, 2, wherein it has been categorically mentioned by him that as the appellant was in jail it was not possible for him to observe the formality of issue of show-cause notice to the appellant. It was not practicable to give the appellant a show-cause notice in the jail, thus action taken by the authority was consistent with sub-rule (2) of rule 9, ibid. Thus, no illegality has been committed by the authority. The rule 9, ibid in this case has been applied correctly and the dismissal of the appellant is lawful.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant, the mere fact that the appellants was in jail was not sufficient ground for not issuing the show-cause notice to the appellant. We find that it was possible for the authority to serve the appellant the show-cause notice through the Superintendent of Jail, alternatively authority could send him show-cause notice by the registered post through the Superintendent of Jail. In these circumstances of the case we do not find that it was not reasonably practicable for the authority to give the appellant opportunity of showing cause and thus the competent authority has failed to follow the provisions of the rule 9 ibid.
7. The upshot of the above analysis is that the impugned order is set aside and case is remanded to the authority to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the rules as mentioned above. It is further directed that the appellant be reinstated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant so that the authority could proceed against the appellant. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service will also be decided by the authority when a decision is taken by him under the law.
' There will be no order as to costs. . Case remanded.