' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.----Leave is claimed against judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 16-1-1996 whereby petitioner's 'Service Appeal' challenging the order of his removal from service, was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer on 4-2- 1984 in the National Institute of Child Health, NICH for short, Karachi. He was served with a show- cause notice, dated 28-5-1994 on 20-6-1994. According to him, the 'show-cause notice' did not contain any specific allegation against him and, therefore, the same was general in nature but still proposed penalty of removal from service. All efforts on his part to impress upon the respondent authorities to provide him with requisite information, vide letter, dated 25-6-1994, to enable him to prepare defence-reply thereto, did not yield any result. Some information, in response to his letter, dated 25-6-1994, was conveyed to the petitioner by the concerned quarters and he was directed to furnish reply to the show-cause notice within 7 days. He did make a reply on 11-8-1994, reiterating his earlier stand that unless he is provided with the requisite material to be considered in advance, he cannot make a reply to the show-cause notice legally. The respondent authorities did not give any credence to his contention on the subject and, treating the petitioner having accepted the allegations by not availing of the opportunity of personal hearing, they imposed the penalty of removal from service, on 30-3-1995. His departmental appeal, dated 26-4-1994, having been rejected by the appellate authority vides Memo dated 4-7-1995, received by the petitioner on 15-7-1995, he made the appeal before the Federal Service. Tribunal on 15-8-1995, which is the subject of this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Abdul Wahid Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Maulvi Anwarul Hach learned Deputy Attorney-General for the respondents and are inclined to grant leave to consider the following questions:--
(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this cases the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action within the contemplation of both, sub- clause (b) to cause (iii) and clause (iv) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
(b) Whether the petitioner had not made out a case for the provision of relevant material to him with a view to preparing his reply to the show-cause notice and if so, whether the proceedings taken against him at the departmental level as also before the Federal Service Tribunal are not liable to be set aside?