Qazi FAIZUL HAQ vs N.W. F. P. THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY

1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-The appellant while serving as Extra Assistant Commissioner, Charsadda in 197S. Allowed bail to Ghulam Rasool, who was charged for double murder on the basis of a_ Compromise application purporting to be signed by the relations of the deceased whose statements were also recorded. Thereafter it transpired that those persons had impersonated the real relatives of the deceased, and by a false representation managed to secure the bail of the murderer.

2. ' An application in this behalf was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, who referred it to the appellant and the appellant thereupon lodged two complaints against the persons responsible for making the false statements. Nonetheless the appellant was charge-sheeted for misconduct and as his reply was not found satisfactory, an enquiry was held by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, who found him guilty of misconduct. The enquiry report, dated the 7th of October, 1978, containing his decision was sent to the competent authority, and on its acceptance he was dismissed from service on the Ist of January, 1974. His review application was also rejected on the 10th of January, 1979. The appellant challenged this decision before the Service Tribunal, Peshawar, and as there was a difference of opinion, it was referred to the third member, who agreed with the Chairman and the appeal was, accordingly, dismissed on the 10th of February, 1981.

3. Leave was granted to consider as whether there was any violation of the rules by the failure in not supplying the copy of the report, and the issuance of the second show-cause notice before the decision for dismissal, was taken.

4. ' As this Court had, while interpreting the rules in S. Mir Muhammad F. P. Government through Chief Secretary (1), held that these two requirements are necessary, the learned Assistant Advocate- General did not contest the legal position and stated that the dismissal order be set aside, with the result that the disciplinary proceedings should be held to be pending from the stage the enquiry report was sent to the competent authority, and the appellant should be treated as under suspension.

5. ' In view of this statement, we allow the appeal and order accordingly. There would no order as to costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}

(1) PLD 1981 SC 176 {{FOOT NOTE}}