' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Mr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director, Excise and Taxation Department, Rawalpindi and the Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Department, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 3-6-1982 and 11-7-1983 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service w,e,f, 3-6-1983 with full back benefits.
3. This appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was sentenced under section 468, P.P.C. To undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs,2,000 under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.
The appellant was served with a show-cause notice under rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) rules, 1975. The said notice was acknowledged by the appellant on 18-5- 1982 but he failed to give any response thereto. The appellant was consequently removed from service with immediate effect vide order, dated 3rd June, 1982 of Director, Excise and Taxation, Rawalpindi. The appellant made an appeal to the Director-General, Excise and Taxation of Punjab, Lahore. The appellant was heard in person and the appeal was rejected vide order, dated 11-7-1983.
Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant on the technical ground that the show-cause notice should have been issued by the "Authorised Officer" instead of "authority" and thus the appellant has been prejudiced in -the matter. The appellant has not been afforded a proper opportunity to defend himself and the order of removal of the appellant from service is, thus, unjustified and unlawful.
6. Rebutting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the .Appellant, the learned District Attorney has submitted that in the case where a civil servant is convicted by a Court of law, the procedure as laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 is not applicable in the case of said civil servant and he has to be proceeded under rule 9 of the said Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Thus rule 9 of the said Rules empowers the competent authority to issue a show-cause notice and the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any substance and be overruled. It has also been submitted by the learned District Attorney that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant as he was served with a show-cause notice by the authority as required under the rule and also he was heared in person by the appellate authority before rejecting the appeal of the appellant. Thus the impugned orders are valid, lawful and are not assailable.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. We find that there is force in the arguments of the learned District Attorney. The appellant was duly served with a show-cause notice by the authorit as required under the rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and he was also heard in person by the appellate authority before deciding his appeal. Thus, the appellant has been provided due opportunities to defend himself as "equired under the Rules and no prejudice had been caused in the matter.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such, in limine.
' There will be no order as to costs.