The petitioner, a confirmed patawari, while working as in patawari in Circle No. 113/15-L, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan, was raided and a sum of Rs. 20 recovered from him. The said amount was state to have been accepted as Illegal gratification from one Bashir Ahmad for the supply of a copy of jamabandi to him. A charge-sheet was issued on 9-4-1964, and after considering his reply, it was found to be unsatisfactory. A regular enquiry was ordered, which was entrusted to the Settlement Tehsildar, Khanewal. A detailed enquiry was, held into the matter at which 8 prosecution witnesses and 9 defence witnesses were examined. On the basis of the evidence that was brought before him, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the allegation levelled against the petitioner that he had accepted Rs. 20 as illegal gratification was not proved. In the aforesaid enquiry report, 7 reasons were set out for the said finding, It was painted out that according to Bashir Ahmad, a sum of Rs. 20 was being demanded from him in connection with the supply of the copy of the Jamabandi, but this story could not be believed because the reason given for which the aforesaid copy was allegedly required, namely for submitting it with his application for securing some allotment under the Well Sinking Scheme was false, as no allotments under the said scheme were hung then made. It was also pointed out that the recovery of the tainted amount from the petitioner was not by itself proof of the correctness of the allegation, when a valid explanation for being In possession of the amount was tendered by the petitioner. It was further pointed out that no one had over-heard the conversation which passed between the complainant and the petitioner, which would have really shown why the money was being accepted and according to the Enquiry Officer, actually the whole show had been engineered by one Muhammad Saleh, a close relative of Bashir Ahmad, as the former wished to teach the petitioner a lesson for making adverse reports against him. Only one of the seven reasons given P or not accepting the allegation levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses.
2. The enquiry report dated 31-5-1965, with tree above findings, was forwarded to the Settlement officer/Collector. The said report, however, was not accepted by the Collector, when it was put up before him and vide his order dated 7-9-1965 he rejected it, observing that when the money had been recovered from the accused, the allegation of corruption stood prima facie proved and that the Enquiry Officer on the basis of minor discrepancies had ignored reliable evidence. He further observed that he found the accused to be guilty. A final show-cause notice to the petitioner was accordingly issued on 15-9-1965, in pursuance of the above order. This was accompanied by a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report, dated 31-5-1965, as well as a copy of the observations recorded by the Collector dated 7-9-1965.
3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice but the same was not found to be satisfactory and the Collector, vide his order dated 19-10-1955 imposed upon him the punishment of dismissal from service. Against the above order of the Collector an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the learned Commissioner but while the same was still pending, he was put on trial before tic Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Multan, for the offences under section 161, P. P. C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner was acquitted by the said learned Judge, who in the course of his judgment observed that '1'. W. Muhammad Saleh was the real man behind the present raid and P. W. Bashir Ahmad was only a puppet in his hand" and after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that a prima facie case had been made out by the petitioner that Re. 20 recovered from him .vas in connection with the return of the said amount, which he 'tad given to Bashir Ahmad some days prior to the raid. He was accordingly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge levelled against him, vide the judgment of the learned Special Judge dated 1st September 1966.
4. Sometimes thereafter, the service appeal of the petitioner filed before-the Commissioner came up for hearing, on 31-5-1967, before him but notwithstanding the acquittal order recorded by he learned Special Judge In the criminal trial, the sold appeal vas dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision petition against an order of the Commissioner before the Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, which, too, was rejected on 7-1969. The petitioner by this petition under Article 98 of the 962-Constitution, has prayed that the orders passed against him by all the authorities culminating, In the order of the learned member, Board of Revenue, dated 1-7-1968, may be declared as laving been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect.
5. This writ petition is liable to be accepted on the short ground that the guarantee, conferred by the Constitution, to servants in the employment of the State that they shall not be dismissed unless a reasonable opportunity is granted, of showing cause with respect to the action proposed to be taken against them, was not duly complied with before the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner.
6. It will be seen that the Enquiry Officer had, after discussing the evidence on the record, come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not established and in support of the said finding had given as many as seven reasons. However, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was not accepted by the competent authority, who, on the other hand, found that as a result of the said enquiry the allegation levelled against the petitioner stood established and on the basis of this determination Issued to him the final show-cause notice. A reference to the I terms of the said show-cause notice reveals that the report of the Enquiry Officer is exclusively relied upon for the statement in the show-cause notice that the charge against the petitioner was established. Hut the perusal of the report shows to the contrary that by- it, she petitioner was exonerated of the allegation levelled against him, and, therefore, the recital in the show-cause notice that the petitioner had been found guilty on its basis is incompre--hensible. No doubt, the observations of the Collector recorded on 7-9-1965 were forwarded to the petitioner, alongwith the findings of the Enquiry Officer, bits these observations do not indicate why the petitioner's defence, which was accepted by the Enquiry Officer was rejected by the Collector as they deal only with some aspects of the findings of the Enquiry Officer arid nothing is said therein about the principal reasons which persuaded the Enquiry Officer is reaching the conclusion that the allegation levelled against the petitioner could not be accepted.
7. A civil servant in response to the notice to show cause, issued after the conclusion of the enquiry is entitled to show cause not only against punishment provisionally g proposed therein but is also entitled to challenge the finding that the charge preferred against him has been found to be established. A The facts that have been set out above show that the material relied upon in the show-cause notice for the assertion that the allegation levelled against him stood established consisted of: (a) the Enquiry Report, and (6) the observations of the Collector, rejecting the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. It has already been pointed out that in the observations made by the Collector Were is no reference to most of the reasons given by the Enquiry Officer for accepting .the defence of the petitioner. Nor was the petitioner given any indication an to why the Collector differed with the Enquiry Officer with regard to the latter's find--ings that the entire story with regard to the given of the illegal gratification in connection with the supply of the copy of the jamabandi so that an application might be made for allotment under the Well Sinking Scheme was entirely unbelievable, as no allotments under the said Scheme were then being made. In the absence of any indication of the opinion of the competent authority (Collector) on this point, the petitioner could not possibly make any effective representation against the findings expressed in the final show-cause notice that his guilt was estab--lished. In view of this situation, it cannot be held that he was afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken with respect to him.
8. The view of the Provincial Government expressed in S. & G. A. D. Department Letter No. OIV (S & GAD)-1/61-64, dated 26-1-1965, reproduced at page 663 in Establishment Manual. Volume III, Organisation and Methods Unit, Services and General Administration Department, Government of West Pakistan, in a like situation, is also similar. In the said letter, It has inter alia, been laid down as follows: "3. Following are the possible alternatives which can arise on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer by the 'Authority':- (i)
(ii) The authority may not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
(iii)
(iv)
5. In case of the possibility mentioned at (2) above, the difference of the opinion between the Enquiry Officer and the 'authority' can be of two kinds. In case, the Enquiry Officer finds the accused guilty while the 'authority' on consideration of the report comes to the conclusion that findings are not based properly on the evidence produced before him and are not justified. No further action is called for and the decision of the 'authority' is to be communicated to the accused. If on the other hand the Enquiry Officer exonerates the accused and the 'authority' holds hits guilty on the basis of the evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer, the grounds on which the 'authority' differs from the findings of the Inquiry Officer should be communicated to the accused alongwith the report of the Inquiry Officer and he has to b.- given an opportunity to show cause why a particular penalty should not be imposed."
According to the above letter, the grounds on which the "authority" differs from the findings of the Enquiry Officer should be intimated to the accused alongwith the report of the Enquiry Officer. It appears to be implicit in the above direction that the grounds to be communicated to the accused on which th4 'authority' differs from the findings of the Enquiry Officer Must B be sufficiently explanatory to enable him to make a meaningful representation, both against the fin2ing that the allegation levelled against him stands proved as well as against the penalty which is proposed to be imposed on him on the basis of the said finding.
In the facts and circumstances of this case the conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
9. The upshot is that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the Collector, Multan, against the petitioner vide his order dated 19-10-1965 is of no legal effect and is void. The appellate and revisional orders automatically fail as a result of the above finding. This petition, therefore, succeeds, but the Shah,parties are left to bear, their own costs.