1. SAHIBZADA MUHAMMAD FARIDOON KHAN (MEMBER).--Syed Wajahat Ali Shah was appointed as Civil Judge in the N.-W.F.P. on 9-5-1978. During his short span of service he was given Adverse Remarks in his Annual Confidential Report and on 12/16-12-1981 the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in his capacity as Authorised Officer, issued him a show-cause notice under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973 for his reputation of being corrupt and inefficient. After getting the reply of Syed Wajahat Ali Shah, the Chief Justice/Authorised Officer submitted the case to the Governor/Authority for orders and the Governor/Authority by his order dated 23-2-1982 ordered the removal of Syed Wajahat Ali Shah from service with immediate effect. Syed Wajahat Ali Shah filed a review petition before the Governor which was rejected. Thereafter, he had filed an appeal in this Tribunal on 27-6-1982 questioning the order of his removal from service. The Tribunal observed that the only ground on which the order of removal from service had been passed was that he had obtained adverse remarks. The Tribunal after going through the Confidential Reports was of the opinion that the appellant should have been compulsorily retired instead of removing him from service. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the appeal to the extent that the order of his removal was converted into one of compulsory retirement from service on 12-3-1984.
2. Syed Wajahat All Shah, appellant filed a Civil Appeal No, 10-P of 1988 in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar dated 12-3-1984 whereby the penalty, awarded to the appellant, of removal from service was converted into the punishment of compulsory retirement. Leave to appeal was granted to the, appellant in Civil Appeal No, 10-P of 1988 to consider whether the impugned judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, was a proper and legal disposal of the appeal filed before it.
3. After hearing counsel for Syed Wajahat All Shah and the learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan noted that in the case of appeal namely Civil Appeal No, 10-P of 1988 the Tribunal had passed a casual order which did not appear to be well- considered or reasoned one. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the N.-W.F.P.
4. Service Tribunal, Peshawar for deciding that afresh after hearing the parties.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the show-cause notice dated 12/16-12-1981 served on the appellant was vague, inaccurate and was not in accordance with Rules 5 and 6 of the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that proper inquiry against the appellant had not been held which was necessary. In that regard he quoted a Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No, 295 of 1969 Muhammad Siddique Javaid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan and Civil Appeal No, 14 of 1970 Abdul Rashid Abbasi v. Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh and 2 others and Civil Appeal No, 97 of 1970 Mumtaz Hussain Malik v. Government of West Pakistan, wherein it was decided that "the probationer will be protected by provision of Article 177 of the Constitution of 1962 and will be entitled to a show-cause notice and a proper enquiry against him must be made" PLD 1974 SC
393. Learned counsel or the appellant also argued that the order of removal of the appellant in a consolidated order is also irregular and is liable to cause injustice to the individuals.
6. We have gone through the record of the case and thoroughly considered the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 and are convinced that it is discretion of the authorised officer to decide whether an I enquiry is necessary and should be conducted or is not necessary and need not to be conducted. However, it would be necessary that the Authorised Officer must act judicially, fairly and impartially and is duty bound to make judicious consideration of the facts of case to arrive at a correct decision whether such facts warrant holding of inquiry in the interest of justice. The show-cause notice No,101/Secy., dated 12/16-12-1981 served on the appellant is undoubtedly vague and even does not contain any reference to rules. The manner in which Government servant is believed to be corrupt should be made clear. For instance it should be mentioned whether he accepts money as a motive or reward for showing undue favour.
7. Explanation to the show-cause notice submitted by the appellant contained certain important material which needed a proper enquiry but no enquiry had been made nor Mr. Ghulam Mustafa (Reader) who was alleged to be the main cause of ill-reputation of the appellant had been enquired.
8. We are also of the considered view that had the service of the appellant been terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work in terms of his service rules it would not have been a stigma against him, but as he, had been removed from service on the charge of reputation of being corrupt and inefficient, therefore, it is definite stigma against him. This would be against natural justice, to remove the appellant without proper enquiry and not affording him full opportunity to defend himself.
9. In the light of above facts we would, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order dated 23-2-1982 removing the appellant from service. This, however, will not preclude the Appointing Authority from taking action against the appellant afresh, if so advised in accordance with the law.
10. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The file be consigned to the record room.