1. SALAHUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The respondent, a confirmed Patwari, has challenged the validity of his dismissal on the basis of a show-cause notice which did not afford him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him.
2. It appears that the respondent was charged with having accepted a sum of Rs. 20 as illegal gratification from one Bashir Ahmad for the supply of jamabandi to him. The Inquiry Officer examined 8 prosecution witnesses and 9 defence witnesses and came to the conclusion that the charge was not proved against the respondent. The Officer gave no less than 7 reasons for arriving at the finding. He, inter alia, observed that the reason given for obtaining the jamabandi was not true, and that the respondent had furnished a valid explanation for being in possession of the money recovered from him. It was further observed that the whole show had been engineered by one Muhammad Saleh, a close relative of Bashir Abmad, against whom the respondent bad made adverse reports.
3. The report was, however, not accepted by the Collector. The Collector was of the view that the recovery of the money from the petitioner was enough to prove the charge that the petitioner had accepted illegal gratifica--petition, and the latter was accordingly held guilty by the former. A final show--cause notice was issued to the respondent which stated that the Inquiry report disclosed that the charge had been framed against him. The show--cause notice made no mention of the reason for differing with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, although a copy of the Inquiry report and a copy of the Collector's observations accompanied the show-cause notice, The respondent replied to the show-cause notice, but it was not found satisfactory and was, therefore, rejected. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. While the appeal was pending the respondent was tried before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for offences under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code and under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrup--petition Act, 1947. The respondent was, however, acquitted. The learned Special Judge observed in his judgment that P.
4. W. Muhammad Saleh was the real man behind the raid and P. W. Bashir Ahmad was only a puppet in the hand of the former. The Special Judge further found that a prima facie case had been made out by the respondent that the money recovered from him was in connection with the return of the money given by him to Bashir Ahmad.
5. Nevertheless, the Commissioner dismissed the respondent's appeal. The revision petition filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue. The respondent's Constitution petition before the High Court, however, succeeded. The High Court allowed the petition on the ground that the respondent had been dismissed without having furnished him with a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the purported action against him.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is evident that the Collector neither dealt with the several reasons given the Inquiry Officer in support of his conclusion nor stated in the show-cause notice the reason for the proposed action against the petitioner. Nay the' reason given was not true for the Inquiry report in fact found the respondent not guilty. We, therefore, do not think this is a fit case for interfering with the order of the High Court.
7. The petition is dismissed.