ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--Briefly speaking, the facts of the case are that the appellant was a Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal when he was convicted by a Summary Military Court to undergo one year's R. I. on charges of accepting illegal gratification. The sentence was reduced by Martial Law Administrator to three months* R. I. which was served out by the appellant. As a consequence of this conviction the Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal dismissed the appellant from service vide his <#der dated 3-7-1969 (Annexure 'A* on record). In his appellate order the Commissioner, Multan Division taking a lenient view, converted the punishment of dismissal into one of compulsory retirement and also ordering that the period from 19-5-1969 (date of his suspension) to 31-10-1969 be considered as leave due.
2. The aforementioned dismissal order of the Deputy Commissioner is impugned on the plea of an ex parte action, depriving the appellant of anl opportunity to show cause, personal hearing etc. We do not find any forceU in this argument on tiie basis of Rule 6-B (a) of the Efficiency and Discipline! Rules, 1960 which it reproduced below: "6-B, Nothing in rule 6 or 6-A shall apply to a case:-- (a) where the accused is removed from service, or reduced in rank, on the ground of conduct which has led to a sentence of fine or of imprisonment." It may be stated that Rules 6 and 6-A lay down the enquiry procedure (entailing issue of charge-sheet, opportunity to show cause and personal hearing on request etc.) in cases of minor and major penalties respectively. Province of Punjab v. Allah Bakhsh {Ashfaq Alt Khan, Member)
3. The learned counsel has placed great reliance on the S & G. A. D. letter of 18th May 1962 appended with the memorandum of appeal. This letter contains instructions regarding cases of persons convicted under ordinary law or Martial Law Regulations, and who are dimissed or removed or reduced in rank without any formal enquiry under the above-mentioned provision of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It is said in this letter that there is no provision in the Constitution or in the Pakistan Public Service (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1957, dispensing with a reference to the Public Service Commission in such cases, which makes it obligatory to refer the cases of the aforementioned category to the Public Service Commission notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 6-B(a) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. This letter very obviously applies to cases which were referable to the Public Service Commission under the Pakistan Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1957, and by no stretch of imagination can these instructions be considered applicable in the case of award of punishment to a Junior Clerk. This argument on behalf of the appellant has no merit and is rejected.
4. The appellant's character^ has been tainted with an act of moral turpitude and the employer is q&ite within its rights not to keep such a person in his employment. The appellant has already availed of whatever leniency was considered appropriate in his case in the appellate order of the Commissioner. The conversion of dismissal into compulsory retirement will apparently entitle the appellant to proportionate pension in accordance with the length of approved service rendered by him subject of course to satisfactory record of service.
5. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed in limine. 1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 127 [Administrative Tribunal Punjab] Present : Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbart Members PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through the Superintendbnt, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur versus ALLAH BAKHSH , decided on 13th December 1974. West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960-- --- Rr. 6-A & 8--Dismissal due to misconduct-- Inquiry--Mandatory--Accused charged of misconduct due to alleged wilful absence without leave --Failure to hold proper inquiry, in circumstances, heldt rendered dismissal order illegal, [p. 129J4 & B A. G. Humayun for Appellant. Respondent in person. Order Ashfaq Ali Khan (Member).--This is an appeal by the Province of the Punjab through the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur against the judgment and decree awarded by the Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur dated 26th January 1972. The facts of the case are that Orderly Allah Bakhsh respondent was allowed to proceed on leave for a period of two months beginning from the 7th May 1968. As such he was due to report back for duty on the 7th of July 1968. However, instead of joining his post of duty Orderly Allah Bakhsh sent a medical certificate for the grant of two months' leave on medical grounds from the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore. This medical certificate was received in the Office of the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur a day before the expiry of the leave granted to the respondent. Another medical certificate for the extension of leave for one month was received on 9-9-1968 and yet another certificate for the sanction of leave for one more month was received by the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur on 4th October 1968. All these certificates were received in the post and though their meaniag and purpose was obvious, objection was taken by the appellant to the effect that no formal application for the grant of leave signed by the Orderly was received. A corollary effect was that the Superintendent, New Central Jail did not know the complete address of the respondent. It was inferred therefrom that the respondent had not enclosed a formal application with the medical certificate with mala fide intentions. He was held to be guilty of the breach of the departmental rules and regulations and as such his conduct was found objectionable and liable for disciplinary action. Accordingly, the then Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur discharged him from service forthwith by an order dated the 20th September 1968. Finding himself dismissed from service the respondent Allah Bakhsh filed a Civil in the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur. The learned civil Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff who is respondent in the present appeal, with costs on 26th January 1972. Thereupon the appellant filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur in .
This appeal was abated in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Ordinance, 1974. The present appeal was filed by the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur with the prayer that the judgment and decree of the Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, dated 26th January 1972 be set aside with costs. We have given due consideration to the documents placed on the file and heard the parties at length. We find that the service of the respondent was regulated by the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules of 1960. The procedure laid down in these rules in a case involving dismissal from service calls for certain specific requirements. Rule 6-A lays down that charge-sheet with the statement of allegations should be prepared and handed over to the accused official who shall furnish his written statement to the charge-sheet and allegations within a time which shall not be less than 14 days.
Rule 8 ibid prescribes that an inquiry against the allegations is to be made into the conduct of the accused official if a major penalty such as dismissal is envisaged. The Inquiry Officer is required to examine all the witnesses of prosecution and defence and has to take into account the evidence produced before him while making his report on the allegations made against the accused official.
The learned Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur came to the following conclusions in the present case :-- "In the instant case it appears that the plaintiff was not provided with these opportunities. Neither the inquiry officer was appointed to hold a regular inquiry regarding the absence of the plaintiff nor he was given an opportunity to show that he had submitted the medical certificate from Services Hospital, Lahore alongwith the application for extension of his leave. I think if the accused would have been given J 975 Abdul Manan Khan v. Director, Social Welfare 129 (Saad Saood Jan, Chairman) a chance to put in his defence regarding his absence then the impugned orders would have not been passed. The charge-sheet that is produced as Exh.
D-l is not properly framed so as to show on what grounds the plaintiff is guilty of such acts which amounts to misconduct. However, those acts are not described therein. Similarly the statement of allegations Exh. D-2 is also incomplete. The reply to the charge-sheet is Exh. D-2 and there is nothing on the file that the plaintiff was given a chance to substantiate his defence by producing evidence. The next document worth of consideration is Exh. D-4. It is show-cause notice wherein the plaintiff was asked to explain within three days as to why he should not be removed from service. The show-cause notice was preceded by short order by the Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur who said that the explanation given by the defaulter (plaintiff) was absolutely unsatisfactory and therefore he should be served with a show-cause notice as to why his services should not be dispensed with." It is not in dispute that the respondent had submitted valid and genuine medical certificates. It appears to us that no proper and formal inquiry was held and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to advance' cogent arguments to the contrary. He has conceded before us that the pro-M cess adopted for dismissing the respondent suffers from serious legal imperfections. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the leamed Administrative Civil Judge that Mr. Allah Bakhsh, the respondent duly informed the Department regarding bis illness acd that his absence from duty was owing to genuine reasons. In the hypothetical possibility of bis leave not being sanctioned it was open to the Jail authorities to inform him on their decision at the address available in his Service Book. It has not been pleaded before us that the appellant resorted to this course. We, therefore, hold that the respon-i dent was not given an opportunity to be heard during the inquiry and thatlfl the civil Court very rightly and properly set aside the impugned order.! Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal with costs.