' SARFRAZ HASAN (MEMBCR-I) -Muhammad Rafique son of Muhammad Din. Formerly Patwari Halqa farkhanwala, Shahpur Tehsil has filed this appeal Endo section 4 of the Punjab Scrvkc Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and A.C./Collector, Shahpur Sub-Division, Shahpur as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, Muhammad Rafique has prayed that order dated 21-1-1986 of A.C./Collector, Shahpur dismissing him from service and order dated 19-4-1986 of Commissioner, Sargodha Division rejecting his appeal against order of the said A.C. May be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. Facts of the case are that while posted as Patwari Halqa Tarkhanwala, Shahpur, the appellant was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and vide order dated 13-11-1984 of A.C./Collector, Shahpur was dismissed from service.
' Accepting the appeal, the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, vide his order dated 18-5-1985 directed that the appellant should be given an opportunity of being heard and his case decided afresh. The appellant was served with seven charges as under:-
(i) That you did not send the report regarding the forfeited crops of Khalid Amir etc. In Tehsil Office, as Superdar.
(ii) That you were often found absent from the Tehsil Headquarter.
(iii) That you received an amount of Rs, 5,700 as Land Revenue from Ghaus Muhammad Lambardar, Okanwala and failed to deposit into the Government Treasury.
(iv) That you were summoned by the Deputy Commissioner on 22-12-1983 in connection with case captioned as "Muhammad Nawaz v. Muhammad Rafiq" but you failed to attend the Court.
(v) That you failed to deposit Rs,720, Rs,182.50 and Rs,700 in the Government Treasury as Land Revenue on 19-11-1983 received by you from M/s. Haji Ahmad son of Ahmad, H. Ghulam Hussain son of Muhammad, Abdur Rehman son of Sultan, Allah Bakhsh son of Nizam and Muhammad Abdullah son of Ahmad respectively.
(vi) That you failed to deposit Rs,356, Rs,378.50 and Rs,374.50 in the Government Treasury received by you as Land Revenue on 27-12-1983 from M/s. Muhammad Abdullah son of Ahmad, Allah Bakhsh son of Ahmad Yar and Shams son of Dilmir residents of village Tarkhanwala respectively.
(vii) That you failed to deposit Rs,5,700 and Rs,1,036.85 into Government Treasury which was received by you from Muhammad Ghaus Lambardar, Okanwala Tehsil Shahpur and Mumtaz Lambardar of village Okanwala relating to Rabi 1983 crop. Later on you refunded Rs,2,000 to Mr. Ghaus Muhammad Lambardar and the remaining amount was embezzled by you.
' According to order dated 21-1-1986 of A.C./Collector, Shahpur (respondent No, 2) read with parawise comments submitted by the said respondent, charges Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 stood proved against the appellant while the remaining charges were not proved against him. Agreeing with order dated 21-1-1986 of A.C./Collector, Shahpur, the Commissioner, Sargodha Division rejected the appeal of Muhammad Rafique. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance.
5. The main points submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant were:-
(i) That the departmental proceedings against the appellant suffer from legal lacuna in that copy of the enquiry report was not given to the appellant and that before imposing major penalty of dismissal, no show-cause notice was served on the appellant.
(ii) That the appellant could not be held guilty of charge of corruption and embezzlement of Government dues in respect of charges Nos. (iii), (v) and (vi) as there was no mention of these charges, in charges No, (iii),
(v) and (vi) of the charge-sheet;
(iii) That the appellant could not be held guilty of embezzlement of Government dues in respect of charge No, (vii) as he had already deposited all Government dues in the Treasury by 9-3-1985;
(iv) That the A.C./Collector (Authority) had not applied his mind to the case in that in his order dated 21-1-1986, he recorded the following observations:- "The enquiry report dated 28-11-1985 indicates that charges Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 against the accused Patwari have been proved from the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer. The remaining charges Nos. 1, 2 and 5 however, had not been proved against him."
' In other words, according to the Authority charge No, 5 had been proved and at the same time had not been proved.
6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney submitted that the charge of misconduct and embezzlement of Government dues has been proved against the appellant as he started depositing Government dues after initiation of the departmental proceedings against him.
However, in his parawise comments on para. 5 of the appeal in which it was alleged 'that without serving a copy of the enquiry report or show-cause notice as required by law, the learned A.C./Collector summoned the appellant for a token hearing and thereafter was pleased to dismiss the appellant from service'. Respondent No, 2 (Authority) recorded his comments as follows:- "Admitted. It has been laid down in rule 9 of the Punjab Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 that where the authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to give the accused civil servant an opportunity of showing cause it may impose any of the penalties under these rules without following the procedure laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and found that rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 quoted by respondent No, 2 in his comments on para. 5 of the appeal is in no way applicable to the circumstances of the case.
This is evident from the wording of the Rule itself which is reproduced below:- "9. Certain rules not to apply in certain cases--
(1) Where a civil servant is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude which has led to a sentence of fine or imprisonment, he may, after being given a show-cause notice be dismissed, removed from service or reduced in rank without following the procedure laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8.
(2) Where the authority is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give the accused civil servant an opportunity of showing cause it may impose any of the penalties under these rules, without following the procedure laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8.
(3) Notwithstanding the other provisions of these rules where the Government or Authority is satisfied that one or more civil servants, individually or collectively, have taken part in agitational and subversive activities, resorted to strike, abandoned their official duty or incited others to do so, the Government or the Authority may after serving upon them a notice through a publication in a daily newspaper or in any other manner, asking them to resume duty, and on their failure or refusal to resume their duty impose upon the defaulting civil servant the penalty of dismissal or removal from service without following the procedure as laid down in rules 5, 6, 7 and 8 ibid.
9. It is evident that rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 was not applicable to this case for reasons explained below:-
(i) The appellant had not been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude which had led to a sentence of a fine or imprisonment.
(ii) The authority had not recorded any reason in writing to show that it was not reasonably practicable to give the accused an opportunity of showing cause and therefore he was imposing a major penalty without following the normal procedure laid down under the rules.
10. No copy of the enquiry report either in full or in an adequately summarised form together with the findings of the Enquiry Officer was communicated to the appellant when it was proposed to impose a major penalty on him.
' Although in his comments against para. 5 of the appeal, the authority has stated that the contents of Enquiry Officer's report were read to him", his own order dated 21-1-1986 does not confirm this. On the contrary, in his order dated 21-1-1986, the authority has recorded as follows:- "He has been heard in detail and the record of the enquiry has also been perused."
' It is evident from order dated 21-1-1986 of the authority that neither the copy of the enquiry report was given to the appellant nor were its contents read out to him.
' In this connection attention is invited to case of Federation of Pakistan v. Murad Ali, reported vide PLD 1961 Kar. 285 in which it was held that:- (i)There is no law which makes it specifically necessary that copies of inquiry reports should be supplied but it is almost a corollary to the broader principle of providing reasonable opportunity to defend that in a large majority of cases adequate information of the contents of inquiry reports must be supplied is to reduce the corollary to a safe working formula for departmental use.
(ii) The results of a departmental inquiry either in full or in an adequately summarised form together with the findings of the Inquiry Officer should be communicated to the employee on whom the penalty is proposed to be imposed."
11. Keeping in view what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we arc led to conclude that material irregularities have been committed in the conduct of the departmental proceedings against the appellant and these irregularities have vitiated the proceedings.
12. Keeping in view the above position and the requirements of natural justice, we proceed to set aside the impugned orders dated 21-1-1986 and 19-4-1986, and remand the case to the competent authority so that the proceedings are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and the law laid down by the superior Courts.
The appellant is accordingly reinstated in service w,e,f, the date of his dismissal in order to clothe him with a status of a civil servant. The period between the date of his dismissal and his reinstatement will be decided by the Department.
' There will be no order as to costs.