1. ' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN(CHAIRMAN).--Appellant was serving as a Forest Guard under respondent No,4 when he was removed from service with immediate effect vide order dated 8-10- 1988.
2. ' According to him he joined the service as a Forest Guard under the respondents on 16-2-1974 and served the department for 13 years efficiently and honestly. He also under-went training in 1978 at Thai Forest School, Abbottabad and successfully completed it. On 11-7-1987 an enquiry was conducted against him on an anonymous application and the Authorized Officer without observing the legal formalities recommended the punishment for the appellant so he was removed from service vide impugned order. He preferred an appeal to respondent No,3 on 16-10-1988 and was informed on 21-12-1988 by respondent No,4 that his appeal has been dismissed.
3. ' Actually he submitted a certificate at the time of his appointment to the effect that he is studying in the Middle Class at Govt. High School Nagri Bala. He was also appointed on the basis of the service of his father for the last 26 years in the department. To his bad luck one Muhammad Ramzan, a teacher in Govt. High School, Nathiagali was on inimical terms with him and the certificate relied upon by the Authorised Officer was produced from Govt. High School Nathiagali.
4. Appellant did not submit any forged certificate. Authorized Officer did not give him the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. The proceedings against him are mala fide; hence may be set aside.
5. ' Respondents submitted the written statement denying the allegations contained in the appeal and confirmed that appellant produced a forged document purporting to show him as middle pass from Govt. High School, Nathiagali and not from Govt. High School, Nagri Bala.
6. ' Arguments heard and record perused.
7. ' It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was awarded major- punishment but the Authorised Officer did not appoint an Enquiry Officer to probe into the matter.
8. He himself proceeded against the appellant but did not give him the opportunity to participate in the enquiry mentioned above. This vitiates the entire proceedings because the job of the two cannot be performed by a single person when the major punishment is inflicted upon a government official. Besides this the Authorised Officer even did not follow the procedure prescribed for conducting the enquiry. It is yet to be determined as to whether the appellant obtained a forged certificate from Govt. High School, Nathiagali himself or some other person was instrumented in spoiling his career. He has rendered 13 years' service honestly and efficiently.
9. ' On the other hand learned Special Govt. Pleader argued that the department rightly proceeded against the appellant. It was his duty to produce genuine certifieate.
10. ' This is in nutshell the case of the parties. It is quite clear that the procedure adopted by the A.O.
11. Was illegal, and improper. If he wanted to inflict upon the appellant the major punishment, he was duty hound either to appoint an Enquiry Officer or an Enquiry Committee by serving upon the appellant the charge sheet along with summary of allegations. The Enquiry Officer/Committee was legally hound to record the statements of the concerned persons by giving the appellant the opportunity to participate in it and then to submit the report to the Authorised Officer who was responsible to give the copy of the enquiry report to the appellant. The authority was bound to issue a show cause notice to the appellant before taking the impugned action against him. The non-compliance resulted in setting aside the entire report. We, therefore, accept the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and re-instating the appellant in service with all back benefits.
12. The case is remanded to the authority to take de novo trial; if he so likes, against the appellant.
13. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room.