' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---The appellant was serving as U.D.C. (BPS-7) in the Income Tax Department when he was served with a show-cause notice on 21-9-1991 levelling against him following charges:- "SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ' Whereas you Mr. Masood Pervaiz Siddiqui, U.D.C. Of the office of Circle-21, Companies Zone, Lahore and ex-office bearer of an illegal/defunct Income Tax Employees Association Class-III, Lahore, committed the following irregularities amounting to gross misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Disicipline) Rules, 1973:--
(1) You organized and held elections of an illegal Association despite clear written instructions of the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Region, Lahore vide his letter No,RCIT/2(29)511/Admn., dated 17-8-1991 besides repeated counselling by the RCIT and other senior officers.
(2) You were instrumental in conducting election campaign for an illegal Association during the office hours and thereby disturbed smo oth functioning of the office.
(3) You pasted or got pasted posters on walls and thereby caused damage to the Income Tax office building.
(4) You forced other employees to participate in election of illegal Association.
(5) You conducted yourself in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and acted in unruly/rowdy manner, raising slogans in the Income Tax Building and forcing the officials out of the building thereby obstructing the performance of Government duties.
(6) You unauthorisedly arranged/ organized a musical show without prior permission of the competent Authority.
(7) Your behaviour and the activities cited above constitute gross misconduct under the.
Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973. You are, therefore, charged with gross misconduct under the said rules. After considering the allegations, it has been decided under sub-rule (1) clause (ii) of Rule 5 of the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973 not to hold formal enquiry against you. This show-cause notice is being issued under clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the said Rules. The allegations if established would call for a major penalty of dismissal from service.
(8) You are hereby required under clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 to put in your written defence within seven days of the receipt of this show cause and state whether you desire to be heard in person."
' In his reply the appellant denied all the allegations and the main objection taken was that this case required full-fledged inquiry instead of shorter procedure of show-cause notice. The appellant's plea is that neither he contested nor he participated in the Election of the Income Tax Employees Association and that had sufficient opportunity been provided to him he would have proved his innocence. Subsequently a charge-sheet dated 29-8-1992 along with a Statement of Allegation containing the following charge was served on the appellant: "(1) Whereas you Mr. Masud Pervaiz Siddiqui, U.D.C. Obtained leave on full pay for 37 days i,e, 9-2- 1991 to 17-3-1991 and draw conveyance allowance for the period to which you were not entitled."
' The appellant replied to the charge-sheet in the following words:- "(1) That deduction of conveyance allowance for the period leave availed of was the duty of the concerned Officer/ official who may be asked for negligence. I am always ready to deduct the same from my pay. Therefore, the allegation against me being incorrect is totally denied.
(2) The allegation being totally based on misconduct is denied, as I have committed no irregularity."
' In the inquiry proceedings the Inquiry Officer has held the appellant guilty of this charge and stated that the appellant proceeded on leave from 9-2-1991 to 17-3-1991 and had drawn the conveyance allowance for the period during which he remained on leave and, therefore, he proposed to recover from him the loss sustained by the Government besides, taking necessary action against him. Subsequently another show-cause notice dated 20.1-1993 was issued to the appellant stating that "the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report and has held that charge levelled against you stands fully established. You are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in person. Written defence if any, should also be submitted.
2. The appellant replied to the above show-cause notice on 28-1-1993 and it will be advantageous to reproduce below the relevant extracts from the said letter:- "(3) I have been charge sheeted with Misconduct on the frivolous basis that conveyance allowance has been drawn by me for the period on leave. This situation does not come within the ambit of the definition of misconduct. The enquiry proceedings have been adopted rather arbitrary as it was not my duty to prepare the charge-sheet even then I was fully prepared to refund the over payment but I have not been allowed to do so on the basis that Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Zone have directed that the official may not be allowed to deposit the over payment in Bank due to reason, known to him."
3. The departmental authorities apparently were not satisfied with this reply and consequently, the C.I.T., Lahore, after elaborately discussing all the allegations levelled against the appellant in the show-cause notice dated 21-9-1991 and the charge-sheet dated 29-8-1992 and their replies, dismissed him from service vide order dated 10-3-1994. The appellant then submitted a departmental appeal on 13-4-1994 which was not responded to and thus, after waiting the statutory period of 90 days, he filed present appeal before this Tribunal on 9-8-1994 under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the charges levelled against the appellant involved actual controversies and, therefore, the case should not have been decided without recording evidence and holding the regular inquiry. It was alleged that due to the mala fide of the Authorised Officer no inquiry was held and, therefore, the entire proceedings and the impugned order was quite arbitrary and inoperative. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on several cases including 1985 SCM R 603, PLD 1985 SC 335, 1990 SCM R 1358, 1993 SCM R 603 and PLD 1994 SC 222.
5. ' On merits, the appellant's counsel has raised several grounds to controvert the allegations and mainly stated that he did not contest the Election of the Income Tax Employees Association. We, however, find that on somewhat similar allegations and on similar circumstances this Tribunal has elaborately discussed the issues in the case of Muhammad Nazir Rizvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax Zone-A, Lahore and another (Appeal No,302(L)/93) and finally by a majority view the case was remanded to the departmental authorities for initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under rule 6 of the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973, in the interest of justice and fair play relying on the verdict of the Honourable Supreme Court that where there are controversial points regular inquiry is necessary in order to afford reasonable opportunity to the parties to put their defence. In the instant case, we feel that the circumstances of the case are of such a nature which required a detailed scrutiny except the charge of unauthorisedly drawing the conveyance allowance because the appellant. Did not deny that he had not received the amount in question, but shifts responsibilities of the official who had not deducted the said allowance from his pay. This charge, therefore, stands proved. However, following the decision of this Tribunal in the case, referred to above, and, as already stated, the facts and circumstances of the present case are not only identical to that case but are also in the same nature, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the departmental authorities with the direction to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the same lines as in the above referred cases. A copy of the said judgement of the Tribunal may also be enclosed with this judgment as Annexure.
7. Parties are informed.