1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This appeal is directed against the order of Superintending Engineer, Provincial Building Circle-II, Hyderabad, dated 15th July, 1986 whereby the appellant who was junior clerk in his office was removed from service. This order was the end result of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant under Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline)
2. Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). To begin with the disciplinary proceedings the appellant was served with a show-cause notice, dated 1st June, 1986. The relevant part of the said notice which details the allegations against the appellant is reproduced as under: #TBS (i) #TBE "The details of grave misconduct and insubordination are as under:- That you reported arrival in this office on 27-5-1986 at about 11-00 a.m. After return from forced leave subsequent upon imposition of a penalty on you under a previous show-cause notice. On being asked by Mr. Ahmad Ali, Assistant of this Circle, on my directions, to do the job of tiding, proper filing, paging and listing of the old record, you totally refused to do the duty expected from you. On being called in the personal office of the Superintending Engineer to explain your position you adopted a provocative attitude of a vagabond by your derogatory demeanor and insulted the Superintending Engineer.
(ii) On reprimanding you further manifested in-subordination of the worst kind by your remarks:
(a) that you will see the Superintending Engineer in the streets;
(b) that you will arrange to send the Superintending Engineer on forced leave.
(iii) On your being dragged out from the personal office of Superintending Engineer for the grave misconduct and insubordination you misbehaved with the Circle Office staff leading to a scuffle in the verandah of Superintending Engineer and created law and order situation.
3. ' As is clear from the show-cause notice, the appellant was required to submit his explanation within 14 days which he submitted on 21-6-1986. In his explanation the appellant has categorically denied the allegations attributed to him adding that on the contrary he was abused and maltreated not only by the said Superintending Engineer but also by the Driver, Peon and Chowkidars, under his directions. However, the learned Superintendiig Engineer found the appellant's explanation unsatisfactory and passed the impugned order, removing him from service. The appellant preferred the departmental appeal to the Chief Engineer but as it was not decided within the statutory period of 90 days, he has approached this Tribunal in the present appeal, with prayer that the impugned order referred to above be set aside.
4. ' We heard the arguments of Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori submitted his arguments on behalf of the official respondents. We also went through the record on the file of the case.
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellant laid emphasis only on the point that Mr. Bashir Ahmad Shah, Superintending Engineer who passed the impugned order had simultaneously acted as complainant, witness and Judge (i,e, punishing authority). His contention was that since the said Superintending Engineer had complained against the appellant that the latter's behaviour towards the former was disrespectful, he could not act as Judge in his own cause and punish the appellant himself. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the Supreme Court authority reported as Muhammad Mohsin Siddiqui v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 64 wherein it was held: "The whole proceeding in a departmental enquiry is required by the Rules to be conducted in accordance with the principles of justice. The superior Courts will not tolerate, and certainly not within the frame work of the judicial administration, itself, conditions in which officials can be made prosecutors, judges and punishing authorities when they themselves are the complainants, merely on the ground that the power of removal is vested on them as Appointing Authorities under the Rules."
6. ' The learned Government counsel is constrained to agree with the views expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. We have given our best thought to the arguments addressed at Bar. We share the unanimous views of the learned counsel for both the parties inasmuch as that the said Superintending Engineer should not have acted as judge in his own cause. This view finds support from the above cited authority of the Supreme Court. No doubt the show-cause notice reproduced above clearly shows that the appellant had misbehaved with the aforesaid Superintending Engineer who ultimately punished him by the impugned order. Since he was himself aggrieved party (complainant) he should have refrained from exercising the powers of Prosecutor (Authorised Officer) and Judge (Authority). The appropriate course for him was to have brought the whole affair to the notice of his superior Officer namely the Chief Engineer who, in his turn, could entrust the case to some other officer of his Department competent for taking suitable action strictly in accordance with the said Rules.
8. ' In view of above discussion it is difficult to sustain the impugned order and as such it is set aside.
9. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. However, it is open to the Department concerned to order fresh enquiry against the appellant in accordance with the said rules. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.