MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--The appellant, Mureed Hussain, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order dated 25-5-1986 passed by the Assistant Secretary (General) Board of Revenue (Respondent No.3) vide which the appellant was removed from service and impugned order dated 23-7-1986 passed by Board of Revenue (Appellate Authority) vide which the departmental appeal was rejected. The appellant has impleaded the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, Secretary Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Assistant Secretary (General) Board of Revenue as respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Assistant Secretary (Re-editing), Board of Revenue, in capacity of the Authorised officer issued charge sheet against the appellant on the following allegations:- "Mr. Mureed Hussain, Naib Qasid while posted in the Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing of the Board of Revenue, Punjab rendered himself guilty by submitting an application for three months leave on medical grounds with the request for permission to get treatment from a Hakeem. His request was refused vide No. 8085-85/943-Record, dated 17-12-1985. He again submitted another application on 30-12-1985 and repeated his previous request which was also refused on 22-1-1986 and he was directed to produce a Medical Certificate from the Medical Superintendent Services Hospital failing which he would be treated as absconding from office.
He thereafter submitted an application to the Minister for Revenue directly by violating the instructions contained in Government Servants Conduct Rules and rendered himself guilty of misconduct.
Mr. Mureed Hussain again absented himself from duty with effect from 12.1.1986 without any application /intimation to his superior officers. He was again directed to report himself for duty within 4 days from the receipt of letter No.276-86/ 54-Record, dated 22-1-1986 failing which it would be presumed that he was intentionally absent. He did not care about the directions issued to him and remained absent without any application /intimation to office.
Mr. Mureed Hussain, Naib Qasid, Board of Revenue thus appears to be guilty within the meaning of Rule 2(d) and 3(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 and is liable to be proceeded against under the Rules ibid. It The appellant pleaded not guilty. The enquiry was got conducted by the Authorised Officer and after considering the enquiry report and recommendations of the Authorised Officer the Assistant Secretary (General) Board of Revenue (Respondent No.3) removed the appellant from the service.
Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal which was dismissed vide letter dated 23-7-1986 of the Board of Revenue. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the dismissal order was illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the Assistant Secretary (General) (Respondent No.3) could not act both as Authorised Officer and as competent authority. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the impugned order of removal from service was not proper because it was passed on 25-5-1986 w.e.f. 4-3-1986 from the date the alleged wilful absence of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the appellant was issued final, show-cause notice by the Assistant Secretary (Respondent No.3) (Copy at Annexure 'H' of the appeal) for personal hearing on 26-5-1986 at 11 a.m. But instead of giving the appellant a personal hearing on the said date the impugned order was issued on 25-5-1986 a date preceding to the date notified to the appellant.
5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the impugned order was legal and based on good grounds. The learned District Attorney added that the charge sheet was issued in capacity of Authorised Officer by Zafar Yab Ali, Assistant Secretary (Re-editing) whereas the impugned order was passed by Mushtaq Ahmed, Assistant Secretary (General) of the Board of Revenue in capacity of competent authority. As such there was no assumption of the dual role of Authorised Officer and the competent authority. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the appellant appeared personally on 20-5-1986 before the authority and insisted that he should be heard and as such after personal hearing on 20-5-1986 the impugned order was issued.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel fur the appellant and learned District Attorney. We have also consulted the record including the written objections of the respondents. We would not like to discuss the remaining points in detail at this stage except that we find no defect in manner of conducting the enquiry after the charge-sheet etc. Till the issue of the final show-cause notice by respondent No.3 for the personal hearing on 26-5-1986 but instead of the impugned order being issued after personal hearing of the appellant not earlier to 26-5-1986 it was issued on 25-5-1986 i.e. a date preceding to the date fixed for personal hearing of the appellant. The contention of the respondent that the appellant had appeared personally on 20-5- 1986 and insisted that he would be heard cannot be attached any reliance because the impugned order dated 25-5-1986 (Copy at Annex:'F' of the appeal) does not find any mention that the appellant was personally heard much less that he was heard on 20-5-1986 on his own request instead of 26-5-1986 fixed by the competent authority.
7. Hence the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is accepted. The case is remanded to the respondents to proceed against the appellant from the stage of defect i.e. After affording the opportunity of personal hearing by the competent authority. Meanwhile the appellant to be re- instated in the service to clothe him with the status of a civil servant. The period of absence to be determined by the competent authority w.e.f. The impugned order to the date of his re- instatement in compliance of this judgment.
Announced in open Court on 13-11-1986.
Judgment to be communicated to the parties.
No orders for the costs.
M.Y.H./88-Sr.P