MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, FOOD DEPARTMENT

1. MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN). -Both the appellants were working as Assistant Food Controllers in the Department of Food, Government of Sind and' were posted at Hyderabad. On the report of the Anti Corruption Department both these officers who are the present appellants were served charge-sheets alleging that different ration shops were being run by a particular allottee who was getting ration under forged signature with the knowledge and connivance of the appellants. An inquiry was held and reports submitted to the Secretary Food, Mr. Abdul Karim Lodhi. On the report penalties were imposed by the Secretary, Food Department, reverting both the appellants from the post of Assistant Food Controller, Grade-8 to Food Inspectors, Grade-6, with immediate effect. The appellants preferred review petitions, dated 22nd July, 1979 addressed to the Secretary, Food Department. By an order, dated 4th October, 1979 the rcv-;4w peti tions were allowed and the punishment of reversion was altered and reduced to stoppage of three annual increments in case of each appellant from 1st December, 1979 to 30th November, 1982.

2. There was a similar case against the District Food Controller, who had appealed to the Chief Secretary. The cases of the present appellants, being connected cases, were also forwarded to the Chief Secretary, who found that Secretary, Food Department could not exercise review powers, as only remedy of appeal was provided to the appellate authority, via the Chief Secretary. He accordingly set aside the orders of Secretary, Food Depart ment and restored the orders of reversion in case of both the appellants, without issue of any show-cause notice to them. The appellants have accordingly preferred these service appeals.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that in both these cases option of personal hearing had been offered in the charge-sheets to the appellants who had accepted the same in their written statements; but actually no personal hearing was allowed nor any opportunity for the same was given to the appellants before passing the of final orders. The learned counsel have cited P L D 1980 S C 279 that this denial of personal hearing alone would be sufficient for setting aside the punishments.

4. It has next been argued that when powers were exercised by the Chief Secretary under rule 10-A of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, passing an order prejudicial to the appellants, no opportunity of show cause was by en to the appellants as provided under rule 10-A (2) (Proviso I). Moreover, B under the Proviso 11 to the same Rule any order of punishment could not be revised after the period of three months of the date of communication the Civil Servant, in case he has not preferred any appeal.

5. Lastly, it has been argued that these being cases of charge-sheets no copy of the in penalty could have been imposed without furnishing copy report to the appellants and without issue of a show-cause notice after[ inquiry and report, as held in Mir Muhammad v. N.-W. F. P. Govern ment (PLD1981SC176)

6. Mr, Hassan Akbar, A. A.-G. on behalf of the Government frankly con cedes that all the three objections are valid and that the punishments can not be maintained due to these legal defects and the cases have to be remanded for compliance of the requirements of law and principles of natural justice.

7. In the result we set aside the order of reversion passed against the appellants and remand their cases to the relevant authorities, to proceed from the stage after the report of the inquiry officer and to furnish the appellants with the copies of the reports, accompanied by a fresh show cause notice mentioning the penalty to be imposed and allowing them an, opportunity of personal hearing.

8. No order is made regarding payment of any arrears on account of difference in pay, since merits of the case have not been considered and it is not proper at this stage to express any opinion on facts.

9. A. E Cases remanded.