' The appeal assails the impugned order dated 17-6-1999 of dismissal from service of the appellant as well as order of rejection of his departmental appeal dated 27-11-1999 and thereafter, orders of rejection of his revision petition dated 22-10-2002 under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act.
2. The appellant is primary school teacher who was forced to resort to litigation including writ petitions in the Lahore High Court for the cancellation of his transfer. He first filed Writ Petition No,9788 of 1997. Thereafter he filed another Writ Petition No,8521 of 1998 against the orders dated 24-4-1998 regarding his transfer. The appellant states that status quo was allowed by respondent No,3 in the light of proceedings in the High Court and, therefore, the appellant was relieved of the charge of Senior Headmaster at the relevant time and kept performing his duties till the time he was dismissed from service. The respondents, after declaring the appellant as absent from duty served him with a show-cause notice containing the allegation that the appellant was willfully absent from duty w,e,f, 14-5-1998, that he did not comply with the relieving orders after transfer, that he did not hand over valuable articles of the school inspite of transfer, that he used political pressure for the cancellation of his transfer, that he by passed the authorities and filed appeals/writ petitions in the Court and that he committed misconduct. According to the show- cause notice dated 24-2-1999, the authority took the decision to dispense with regular enquiry under E&D Rules, 1975.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is indirectly admitted by the respondents through their written objections that the appellant remained on duty till his dismissal since it is acknowledged by the respondents that charge was handed over by the appellant at the time of dismissal. It is further maintained that transfer orders were illegal and the appellant was forced to go to the High Court and going to the High Court for the redressal of grievances did not constitute misconduct when a civil servant could not expect justice and even-handedness from the departmental authorities. It is also maintained that allegations including that of using political pressure against the appellant are vague and baseless which were never substantiated and established and the appellant was dismissed by the concerned authorities out of personal vendetta without giving the appellant any opportunity to defend himself. It is also averred that since there was a controversy about the facts of the case, regular enquiry could not have been dispensed with. It is further maintained that even otherwise there was no justification for proceeding against the appellant as he did not commit any misconduct.
4. Appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is maintained by the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was office bearer of Punjab Teachers Union Narowal and had attracted enquiries because of his quarrelsome attitude and using political pressure. It is further maintained that the authority as competent to dispense with regular enquiry as the allegations were clearly proved. It is also maintained that appellant was absent from duty and he also kept valuable articles of the school in his personal custody for a long time which he handed over only when he was finally dismissed. It is also argued that proceedings were conducted against the appellant in accordance with the law and he was given the opportunity to defend himself and prove his innocence but he failed.
5. I have considered the contentions from both sides and have also perused the relevant record. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that facts in this case regarding misconduct of the appellant were controversial and to resolve the controversy regarding wilful absence of the appellant, regular enquiry could not have been dispensed with. I also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that substantial opportunity was not given to the appellant to defend himself. The appellant was not given even personal hearing before passing the impugned orders by the authority. I also find that the appellant according to the impugned orders was dismissed w,e,f, the date of order which fact lends support to the contention of the appellant that he was not wilfully absent and that he had been working till the date of his dismissal. I also find that allegations were vague and non-specific and there being factual controversy it was incumbent upon the respondents to hold regular enquiry as per dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in their judgment reported as 2000 SCM R 1868.
6. In view of the foregoing, the case is remanded to the concerned authority for fresh proceedings against the appellant including regular enquiry on specific allegations. Resultantly, the impugned orders shall stand set aside and the appellant shall stand reinstated to face fresh proceedings. The period involving shall be decided by the concerned authority at its discretion depending on the outcome of the fresh proceedings.
Case remained.