' MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).- Shaukat Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Auqaf Department, Lahore and Director, Nizamat-i-Salat Cell, Auq Department, Lahore, as respondents.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 25-9-1986 passed by respondent No, 2 be set aside and appellant b reinstated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in the first instance the appellant was appointed temporarily as Naib Qasid in BS-1 against a leave vacancy for a period of four months in the office of respondent No, 2 vide his order dated 1-7-1985. The appointment of appellant was regularized against an existing vacancy w,e,f, 29-10-1985 vide order dated 29-10-1985. Since the appellant knew driving, he was attached as Driver with respondent No,
2. On 18-9-1986 respondent No, 2 directed the appellant to bring certain books from Ulema Academy to his residence which he did. He was again directed to go to the office by official vehicle and bring certain other papers from there. The appellant stated that he was not in a position to drive the official vehicle and go again during the curfew hours. Due to this misconduct the appellant was proceeded against by respondent No, 2 and on 9-10-1986 the appellant was delivered by registered post order dated 25-9-1986 dismissing him from service w,e,f, 18-9-1986 due to that misconduct. The appellant on 16-10-1986 preferred a departmental appeal during pendency of which he filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District, Attorney assisted by a representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case with their assistance.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a civil servant is to be proceeded against for misconduct according to the procedure laid down in (E & D) Rules, 1975 which has been totally violated in the case of appellant and hence the impugned order is absolutely illegal and ultra vires.
6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and relied upon the comments/report furnished by the Department. The learned District Attorney prayed that the impugned order dated 25-9-1986 be maintained as the appellant was rightly punished. He further contended that the appellant was dismissed on the basis of misconduct and that he was appointed as Naib Qasid against a leave vacancy on purely temporary basis, therefore, (E & D)
Rules, 1975 were not applicable to him. As such the services of the appellant could be dispensed with without following the procedure laid down in (E & D) Rules.
7. We have given anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties. We have also perused the record of the case. We find that the appellant being admittedly a civil servant could not be dismissed from service due to misconduct without following the procedure laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Since before passing the dismissal order dated 25-9- 1986 in respect of the appellant the prescribed procedure was not followed by respondent No, 2, the impugned order dated 25-9-1986 is not sustainable being unlawful and against the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975.
8. Resultantly the appeal is allowed to the extent that the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh against the appellant strictly in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975.
9. The appellant is directed to appear before the Authority i,e, respondent No, 2 on 29-5-1989. There will be no order as to costs.