1. ' HIDAYATULLAH KHAN (MEMBER)---This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18-4-1996 of respondent No,2 whereby he rejected the departmental appeal of the appellant preferred against the order of removal from service passed by respondent No,3. He has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
2. ' Brief facts of the case as averred in the appeal are that the appellant was appointed on 11-1-1981 as Constable and has served the department for more than 15 years. Respondent No,3 served a show-cause notice on the appellant which was replied by him. Respondent No,3 served on appellant charge-sheet alongwith statement of allegations, which was also replied by him.
3. Respondent No,4 was appointed as Enquiry Officers who submitted a final report. Respondent No,3 served a final show-cause notice on the appellant which was replied by him. Vide the impugned order dated 20-3-1996 the appellant has been removed from service, against which he made an appeal to respondent No,2 who rejected the same vide order dated 18-4-1996. Hence the present appeal has been filed.
4. ' Respondents have filed their replies, contested the appeal and denied the claim of the appellant.
5. ' Arguments heard and file perused.
6. The statement of allegations contains only the charge of absence of the appellant from 24-12-1994 to date without any leave/permission. On the above summary of allegations, the appellant was issued a charge-sheet. From the perusal of the impugned order, many dates of absence from duty have been added to justify the impugned order. It is surprising to note that the appellant was not proceeded against for the absence from duty on various dates as contained in the impugned order, therefore, there is no similarity of charges in between the impugned order and the summary of allegations charge-sheet. If the appellant was absent on so may occasions, the Enquiry Officer should have been entrusted with enquiry on all the dates/period on which the appellant was allegedly absent without leave but in this case, the only date i,e,. From 24-12-1994 to date, has been incorporated in the summary of allegations. This definitely renders the impugned order ineffective on the interest of the appellant. Secondly the respondents while replying to the present appeal have clearly contended at para.F that the appellant during his absence despatched Medical Certificates by post to obtain leave. Respondent No,3 referred the matter to Director Health Services, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar to be confirmed by the concerned Medical, Board but the appellant did not appear before them. In the impugned removal order this aspect has been differently incorporated. The impugned order states that the appellant submitted his reply on the basis of his medical certificate. In response of the same the case was referred to Medical Board, Peshawar who after examining him, did not accept his medical certificate. These are quite contradictory contentions made by the respondents in their reply and their reference in the impugned order.
7. ' The Tribunal under the circumstances accepts the appeal, sets aside the impugned order and restores the appellant to his service from the date of his removal with an option to the respondents to proceed afresh against the appellant for his absence including all the dates mentioned in the impugned order, and conduct a fresh inquiry under the relevant rules/law. In case the respondents did not initiate proceedings against the appellant then the intervening period may be treated as leave of the kind. In case the appellant was proceeded afresh as directed above, the direction regarding leave as due would also be reconsidered in case the appellant approached this Tribunal on the issue. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record.