NUSRAT PARVEZ Versus COLLECTOR (AUTHORITY) CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS

JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ The appellant, Nusrat Parvez, while serving as stenographer in the Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi, was served a show‑cause notice on 12‑10‑1981, and thereafter the order of termination of his service was passed on 17‑10‑1981. The appellant went in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue and the Appellate Authorty passed the following order:

"(i) The inquiry has been conducted ex parte and he has not been associated during the inquiry proceedings.

(ii) Copy of the inquiry report has not been given to the appellant and the he has been denied reasonable opportunity of defence in the case.

In view of the above procedural irregularities, it is desired that de novo proceedings against the accused official may be initiated ensuring that procedural formalities are strictly observed:"

When the matter went back to the Collector, the punishing authority, served charge‑sheet on the appellant on 21‑7‑1983. The charge‑sheet was duly replied, and thereafter a show‑cause notice was also issued. However, since 1984, nip progress has been made in the case.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the C.B.R. which required de novo proceedings did not specifically mention that the appellant had to be reinstated into service. The order of the C.B.R. is silent in this respect. However, since the matter is pending since 1981, it was desirable that during the de novo proceedings the appellant should have been reinstated Needless to say that the order of the penalty itself was wrong inasmuch as provided termination of service, as a punishment which is not one of the penalties enumerated in the Government Servants (E&D) Rules. The termination can be retirement. It can be removal and it also is a dismissal. The order of termination being outside the purview of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, cannot be allowed to continue. However, since the C.B.R. has directed the reopening of the whole proceedings, we do not want to give any finding at resent on the legality give any legality or otherwise of the initial impugned order.

3. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct that the appellant be reinstated into service forthwith and the departmental proceedings should be finalised in the shortest possible time. As regards the consequential benefits, that would depend: upon the result of the de novo proceedings.

4. Parties to be informed accordingly.

M.Y.H./409/Sr. F

Appeal allowed.