' The petitioner who was originally appointed as Librarian of the Municipal Committee, Narowal in 1974, was ordered to work as Octroi clerk on 20th of January, 1980. On 12th February, 1980 he was asked to explain why he did not perform his duties efficiently. He submitted his reply on 19th February, 1980 but was suspended from service. He was charge-sheeted on 23rd February, 1980 and an Inquiry Officer appointed. He made an application before the Inquiry Officer to allow him to be represented by a counsel. His request was, however, refused by the Inquiry Officer on 23rd March,, 1980 for the reason that the matter was at a preliminary stage and it could not be determined if the allegation would call for a major penalty. A notice, dated 3rd of May, 1980 was later issued to him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The dismissal order was, however, made on 14th of July, 1980 and communicated on 15th of July, 1980. It is the case of the petitioner that no copy of the order was supplied to him in spite of repeated requests.
The petitioner then appealed before the Deputy Commissioner and also made a representation before the Government but without any success. He has now filed the present petition.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that as he had made requests for the inspection of the record, vide application, dated 12th of May, 1980 (Annexure L), the legal notice, dated 25th May, 1980 (Annexure N) and application, dated 9th August, 1980 (Annexure P), the denial on the part of the respondent No,2 to let him do so amounts to refusal to give him opportunity to defend, which is without lawful authority. He relies on Abdul Wassey v. Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P.) Kar. 363 and Muhammad Murtaza, Kazi v. University of Sind and others PLD 1960 (W.P.) Kar.
500. In both the cases, the learned Judges of the Division Bench held that the refusal to show much amounted to denying the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself and the same is violative of the rules of natural justice.
' The petitioner has also challenged the refusal on the part of the respondent to let him engage a counsel even at the appropriate stage though the Inquiry Officer left the scope open vide .His order, dated 23rd of July, 1980. The respondents have said nothing on this aspect though some of the respondents had made appearance through their representatives on 6th of June, 1984. The petitioner had further complained that even the order of the competent authority dismissing him had not been supplied to him despite repeated requests. Mr. Noor Muhammad who appeared on that date was directed that the record of the Municipal Committee be produced, but no one has appeared today. No written statement has either been filed. In that view of the matter, I take the two allegations of the petitioner as correct and presume that there is no order passed by the competent authority on the record. I further held that the refusal on the part of the Inquiry Officer to pass any order on the application of the petitioner also to engage a counsel after he came to the conclusion that major penalty was called for in the case, amounts to refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in him by law.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondent No,3, however, shall not be debarred from proceeding with the matter from the stage as it was on 30th March, 1980.- The, respondent shall also bear the costs of this petition.