MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN, (MEMBER).--The appellant was suspended from service as UDC vide order dated 22-9-1982 which is reproduced below:- "As there exists a prima facie case of 'Misconduct' against Mr.Sabehuddin UDC of this Custom House, he is placed under suspension with immediate effect and till further orders as provided under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
(2) During the suspension period he will be entitled to draw a subsistence allowance equal to half of his basic pay plus usual allowances admissible to him under the Rules.
(3) During the suspension period the office of the AX. Estt. (A) shall be his HQ."
2. On 25-9-1982 an order was passed whereby the appellant's services were terminated on the ground that during the probationary period, his working and conduct had not been satisfactory.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed the present appeal on 14-2-1983.
3. It was mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in an identical case of Iqbal Wasti the order of termination of service passed in the similar circumstances and even on the same date has been set aside by this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 29-2-1984. We held in Iqbal Wasti's case that since there was an allegation of misconduct against the appellant, the order terminating his services amounts to removal and could not be passed except by following the procedure prescribed by the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, while, the suspension order' established that the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules were initiated against him by suspending him under the said Rules but without taking those proceedings to a logical conclusion al, slipshod method was used to get rid of the appellant in that case. The present appellant also had been impliedly punished and stigmized by the impugned order. We, therefore, reiterate the view taken in Iqbal Wasti's case that the impugned order was passed on consideration of the charge of misconduct for which the appellant was suspended. Therefore, it was but incumbent upon the relevant authority to proceed against the appellant under the Government Servants (Efficiency' and Discipline) Rules and termination of his service in an arbitrary and slipshod manner is totally unjustifiable, unlawful and mala fide.
4. In the result we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It is directed that the appellant shall be reinstated into service and shall be deemed to be in service from the date of his suspension and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
A.E./377/Sr.F