Haq Nawaz, petitioner, a Head Constable, who had been compulsorily retired by the Superintendent of Police as a disciplinary measure by his order dated 24th July 1972 has invoked Article 201 of the Interim Constitution to challenge the aforesaid order and the orders passed in appeal and revision upholding the same.
2. The petitioner was holding the rank of a Head Constable and was posted as a Moharrir in Police Station, Narang. He was transferred from there to Police Station, Sheikhupura, and a charge-sheet was served on him alleging that while posted as Moharrir of Narang Police Station he had misappropriat--ed old coins of the amount of Rs. 55 which were received by him from Mst. Rasbida Begum for deposit in the Treasury at Sargodha under the orders of the District Magistrate and an enquiry under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efcieney and Discipline) Rules, was held and the punishment as mentioned above inflicted. His appeal to the D. I. G. And revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police were unsuccessful. Hence this petition.
3. The main grievance or the petitioner is that he was not allowed sufficient opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. For making out a case it is urged that show-cause notice served on him was defective and prejudiced his defence. The Superintendent of Police. The competent authority, who agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer provisionally decided "to award one of the major punishments as prescribed in the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. 1960" and called upon him to show cause within 8 days as to why the proposed penalty may not be awarded to him for the said misconduct". The specific objection is that the penalty proposed was not specified and the only description of it to be found was that it was to be a major penalty and according to the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules there were five such major punishments which could be in the alternative inflicted on the petitioner on his being found guilty.
4. There is substance in the grievance voiced by the petitioner that rule 9 of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules requires as follows :- "The authority shall consider the report of the Inquiry Officer, and if upon such consideration it is of the opinion that a penalty should be imposed upon the accused, it shall provisionally determine the penalty to be imposed and shall so inform the accused and supply him with a copy of the report and call upon him to show cause within a reasonable time, which shall not be less than 7 days, nor more than 14 days, why the penalty proposed should not be imposed."
There was non-compliance by the competent authority with the provision of the rules materially prejudicing thereby the defence of the petitioner. The Competent Authority failed to determine the specific penalty which was pro--posed to be awarded to the petitioner. What was spelt out was that one of the major penalties could be inflicted and the petitioner was required to show cause against it. The list of major penalties provided in rule 4 of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules contains the following: "(c) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders;
(d) reduction to a lower post or time scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale;
(e) compulsory retirement
(f) removal from service, and
(g) dismissal from service. "
It will therefore, be clear that the competent authority itself remained undecided about the specific penalty that it proposed to inflict and at no stage did it make ft clear or call upon the petitioner to show cause against that specific proposed penalty. In such a situation there was not only non- compliance with the rules but even the show cause procedure has not been observed in a manner to afford a meaningful and substantial opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the penalty that was to be imposed. This defect vitiates the order of the competent authority and all the subsequent orders passed affirming that order. The petition is accepted with costs. The order of the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura, dated 24-7-1972 is declared to be without lawful authority and of on legal effect.