1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-While serving in the Food Department, the two petitioners were served with charge-sheets, and on being found guilty by the Enquiry Officer they were served with show cause notices as to why they should not be dismissed from service, After considering their replies to the show-cause notices the competent authority directed that they should be compulsorily retired from service. Both the petitioners filed appeals which were unfortunately treated as representations by the Secretary to the Pro--vincial Government in the Food Department and rejected on 23-12-1971.
2. The petitioners challenged their compulsory retirement by means of a constitution petition in the Lahore High Court, but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 12th of March 1973. The learned Judge has found that although initially the appeals filed by the petitioners were incorrectly rejected as representations, but subsequently full hearing was afforded to them by the Director Food, and the matter was finally disposed of by the Secretary Food after lengthy noting had taken place in the light of the pleas raised by the petitioners during the course of their personal appearance.
3. The High Court has also repelled the other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding the conduct of the enquiry against them.
4. Special leave to appeal is now sought on the following grounds:---
(a) That the charge-sheets served upon the petitioners were not accom--panied by the statements of allegations as required by rule 6 of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, with the result that the entire subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners were vitiated;
(b) That the charge-sheets were highly prejudicial inasmuch as they used language which showed that the charges had been prejudged by the authority concerned and the petitioners had already been found guilty without a formal enquiry having been held,
(c) That the show-cause notices served upon the petitioners after the completion of the enquiry mentioned the punishment of dismissal but in actual fact the petitioners were only compulsorily retired from service with the result that the punishment awarded was without lawful authority; and
(d) That the appeals of the petitioners having been erroneously rejected by being treated as representations, the second order made by the Secretary Food and Agriculture on 23-2-1972 was without lawful authority as the first order dated the 23rd of December 1971 had not been formally set aside.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in these submissions.
6. PLD 1970 Lah. 811), in which it was observed that the requirement regarding the supply of a statement of allegations with the charge-sheet was a mandatory provision of law, and non- compliance with it would amount to transgression of an obligatory rule laying down the minimum standards comprising reasonable opportunity to be afforded to a Government servant against whom action is sought to be taken. The learned Judges went on to add that the amount of prejudice, which would be caused to the person concerned, need not be taken into consideration, for non-compliance with the rule itself would constitute denial of a reasonable opportunity which per se would vitiate the action taken." The case before the learned Judges rays one in which the absence of the statement of allegations had caused prejudice for the reason that the charges themselves were shown of all details, and the petitioner was deprived of information as to the basis on which the charges had been framed against him and the other circumstances which were taken into consideration when passing orders of his dismissal.
7. We consider that it is not possible to subscribe to the general proposition enunciated by the learned Judges. It has to be remembered that the rule that the charge-sheet shall be accompanied by a statement of allegations is at best a rule of procedure governing the preliminary stage of a depart--mental enquiry into the conduct of a Government servant. If the reply to tile charge-sheet is not found to be satisfactory by the competent authority then there has to follow a regular enquiry at which evidence has to be led against the Government servant, and he is to be given a full opportunity to defend himself. Such being the case, the mere omission to attach a statement of allegations with the charge-sheet cannot constitute denial of a reasonable Opportunity for defence, unless, of course, it can be shown that prejudice has seen caused to the Government servant concerned by such omission, and such objection has been taken at the earliest opportunity.
8. The next contention to the effect that the petitioners were prejudiced on account of the positive language employed in the charge-sheets has hardly any substance, as none of the authorities dealing with the matter were influenced by the language used in the charge-sheets.
9. The third contention, viz., that the proceedings are vitiated for the reason that the show-cause notices served upon the petitioners mentioned the punishment of dismissal but in actual fact the punishment awarded was only one of compulsory retirement, is equally devoid of force. The punishment of dismissal is the maximum that can be awarded in departmental proceedings against a Government servant, and he can hardly complain if, after considering his reply to the show-cause notice, the competent authority decides to take a lenient view and imposes a lesser punishment.
10. We have not been able to appreciate the last contention raised by the learned counsel. We have already stated that the petitioners themselves had pressed for a personal hearing before the disposal of their appeal by the Secretary to the Provincial Govt. In the Department of Food and Agriculture. In these circumstances, the first order made by this authority on the 23rd of December 1971, whereby the appeals of the petitioners were erroneously rejected by being treated as representations, was rightly ignored and a fresh order was made on 23-2-1972 in the light of the oral submissions made by the petitioners in support of their appeals. If the first order was not formally set aside, then it was a mere technicality and had no bearing on the legality of the second order which was properly made after hearing the petitioners.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.