MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--The appellant, Bashir Akmal Malik, Superintendent, District Jail, Rahim Yar Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 29-7-1985 passed by Inspector-General of Prisons vide which the punishment of withholding increment for one year was inflicted over the appellant and the order dated 11-12-1985 of the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab vide which the departmental appeal was rejected. The appellant has impleaded the Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore and Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore as respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued the following show-cause notice:- "(i) That you failed to enforce the Government instructions/ Rules for the regulation of interviews of the prisoners judiciously and tactfully; as a result of which a mass-uprising took place at District Jail, Muzaffargarh on 28-10-1984 after lock-up.
(ii) Numerous evidences have deposed that illegal gratification was being received by you for jail Fatigue and grant of routine interviews, through Headwarder Sardawal Khan, Rampant corruption for giving legal facilities to prisoners had compelled the prisoners /inmates to protest against your conduct and malmanagement of the affairs of District Jail, Muzaffargarh on 28-10-1984.
AND WHEREAS the undersigned has decided that it is not necessary to have an inquiry conducted in proof thereof and it is proposed to proceed against you under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975.
Now, therefore, you are hereby called upon to show cause in writing within fourteen days of the receipt of this communication as to why one or more of the penalties, as prescribed in Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, should not be imposed on you."
The appellant pleaded not guilty. The Inspector-General of Prisons in capacity of Authorised Officer considered the written statement of the appellant in answer to the show-cause notice and also lent opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and inflicted the penalty of withholding increment for a period of one year vide his order dated 29-7-1985. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal which was also rejected vide orders dated 11-12-1985 of the Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the show- cause notice issued to the appellant the allegations of corruption and illegal gratification were levelled but no regular enquiry was conducted. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1974 SC 393 in case of Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry v. Government of the Punjab. The learned counsel for the appellant added that one enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Inspector-General of Prisons but the same was done at the back of the appellant and he was not allowed to contest the same or produce his defence. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the allegations against the appellant are not well founded much less established.
5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the D.I.-G. Prisons did conduct enquiry against the appellant and found him guilty and submitted a report to the competent authority. The learned District Attorney added that on the basis of preliminary enquiry conducted by the D.I.-G. Prisons, the I.-G. Prisons issued a show-cause notice to the appellant and finding the written statement of the appellant not satisfactory inflicted a minor penalty of withholding increment for a period of one year in capacity of Authorised Officer. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the allegations against the appellant were fully established and the punishment was also justified.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney. Undisputedly the appellant was proceeded against on allegations o: corruption and illegal gratification but instead of conducting regular enquiry after framing charge- sheet the [appellant] summarily proceeded by issue of a show-cause notice under Rule 6(3) of Punjab Civil. Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. Obviously dispensing with the regular enquiry after framing the charge-sheet is a material omission and contrary to the requirements of the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant namely Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry v. Government of the Punjab, reported as PLD 1974 SC 393. This may be further stated that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the DIG Prisons does not disclose that the appellant was made to participate in it and was allowed to cross examine the witnesses as well as produce his defence. As such this enquiry could not be considered as a substitute for the regular enquiry.
7. Accordingly without determination of the merits of the case the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded for fresh regular enquiry after issue of a proper charge-sheet against the appellant.
A.E./52/Sr.S. Case remanded revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.