1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant Altaf Hussain Bughio was employed as Laboratory Assistant in the Girls Medical College, Nawabshah when he was removed from service vide Order No. NMC/NH/ Estt. /2640, dated 1-6-1985 of the Principal of the said Medical College. In this appeal the appellant has impugned the above order.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Hameed M. Siddiqui and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A. -G. For the respondents, the appeal was allowed by short order, dated 8-9-1986 for reasons to follow and the case was remanded back to respondent No.2 for deciding it afresh, after holding a detailed inquiry. Following are the reasons in support on the said short order.
3. We have perused the relevant record for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. It is found that two show-cause notices were issued to the appellant, one, dated 26-3-1985 and another, dated 14-4- 1985. Part one of the first show-cause notice reads as under:- "It has been reported on 24-1-1985 by the then Administrative Officer, Nawabahah Medical College Nawabshah that Mst. Haleema were of Hakim Ali Chowkidar was caught red handed from the kitchen of your flat alongwith yourself in presence of most of the witnesses at the spot."
4. The second show-cause notice is however silent about the above allegations. Since the appellant has been removed from service on the basis of the allegations reproduced above, we have to see if the said allegations have been proved. Admittedly no enquiry as envisaged by Rule 5 of Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) has been held in this case. If the allegations are examined at their face-value, they apart from being vague, do not prove anything rendering the appellant liable for any punishment. All that is stated is that he was caught red-handed with Mst. Haleema in the kitchen of his flat. There is no further elaboration to show that they were engaged in any illicit act or they were only found together in the same room. Moreover, the witnesses in whose presence the said lady was found in the kitchen of the appellant's flat are not disclosed in the show-cause notice.
5. On perusal of the appellant's replies to both the show-cause notices given to him, it is clear that he has denied the allegations of his involvement with the above lady. He has also related the circumstances in which he has been involved in this case. Although the learned A.A. -G. In course of his arguments told us that the appellant was supplied with copies of the statements of the witnesses in whose presence he was caught alongwith Mst. Haleema, we do not find any trace of such material on record. Neither the appellant nor the respondent have laid before us the copies of the statements of the witnesses who had seen the appellant with Mst. Haleema in the former's flat.
6. As required by sub-rule (e) of Rule 5 of the said Rules if "Authorised Officer" decided that it is not necessary to have an enquiry conducted through enquiry officer or enquiry committee, he shall, by order in writing, inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken with regard to him and the grounds of the action, giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action. No doubt the appellant was informed by the first show-cause notice about the action proposed to be taken against him but no statement of allegations against him seemed to have been separately supplied to him. In order to enable the, appellant to meet the charges against him, it was imperative that he should have been furnished a detailed statement of allegations as is invariably done in such cases. A brief mention of the allegations which were patently vague, in the show- cause notice would not do away with the necessity of supplying a separate detailed statement of allegations to the appellant.
7. Apart from above, we feel that the appellant was not provided adequate opportunity of meeting the grave charges of his involvement with the lady. No doubt sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the said rules gives discretion to the "Authorised Officer" to take decision in a case like this, keeping in view the facts of the case and the interests of justice, as to whether inquiry should be conducted through an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee or not. Obviously he is required to exercise the discretion so vested in him judiciously. Since his decision in this regard is to depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case it is bound to vary from case to case. The question arises if in the instant case decision of the "Authorised Officer" not to hold a detailed inquiry was justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. It is not denied that the allegations made against the appellant were of criminal nature constituting a criminal offence. We are surprised why the case of this nature, when it came to the notice of Principal of the College, was not reported to the Police for prosecution of the accused. If the case were sent to the Court after due investigation by the police, the Court could arrive at the conclusion as to guilt or otherwise of the appellant only after due sifting of the evidence laid before it in support of the charges. If the Court had convicted the appellant it would have been easier for the Principal of the College to have awarded penalty of dismissal to him on the basis of such conviction.
9. But since the Principal took upon herself the job which should have ordinarily been done by the Court, it was incumbent upon her to have ordered detailed inquiry as envisaged by the aforesaid rule. It is only in course of the inquiry that the truth or otherwise of the evidence of the witnesses to be produced in support of allegations against appellant I could be brought out. Regardless of the status and position of any witness appearing against the appellant his word cannot be straightaway accepted unless his evidence is thoroughly scrutinised and properly, evaluated. The only vehicle to sift the evidence of witnesses is to subject them to rigors of cross-examination.
10. However, in this case the Principal of the College seems to have followed a short cut procedure little realising that when the facts constituting the charges are disputed, correct decision can be arrived at only after holding a detailed inquiry, and subjecting the witnesses produced in the inquiry by either side to cross-examination. Accordingly we are convinced that since the facts constituting the charges against the appellant are disputed it was necessary for the Principal to have ordered inquiry to be conducted by inquiry Officer of inquiry committee and in absence of such inquiry and without sifting the evidence produced in support of the charges the Principal has erred in placing reliance on the oral or written statements of the witnesses who had allegedly caught the appellant red handed with the aforesaid lady.
11. For above reasons we allowed the appeal by short order as stated above and remanded the case back to the Principal of the Medical College, Nawabshah for 0 deciding it afresh after following the procedure laid down by Rule 5 read with Rule 6 of the said Rules.
12. M.Y.H./93/Lb/S