Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SOHAIL AHMAD VS Respondent: CONSERVATOR, FOREST DEPARTMENT PUNJAB
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1488
[Lahore High Court]
Before Shaikh Abdur Razzaq, J
SOHAIL AHMAD
Versus
CONSERVATOR, FOREST DEPARTMENT PUNJAB and 2 others
Frit Petition No.4691 of 2000/BWP, heard on 24th April, 2001.
Government Servants, (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Rr. 6 & 7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Inquiry proceedings‑‑‑Enquiry Officer sent charge‑sheet to the civil servant through another civil servant who reported that civil servant had refused to receive the same‑‑‑Enquiry Officer after the report, had made no effort to serve the charge‑sheet on civil servant through registered post or through proclamation‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer could not be considered to. be valid proceedings‑‑‑Enquiry report was. set aside with direction to serve the charge‑sheet upon the civil servant in accordance with law and then to proceed further in the matter.
Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi for Appellant.
M. A. Farazi and Rasheed Ali Akhtar, D.F.O. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th April, 2001.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner served as a Camel‑man to the Forest Department, Cholistan Range and was retired compulsorily on 28‑11‑1998 on the charge of wilful absence from duty. After retirement he applied for pension. After usual formalities Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued on 25‑8‑1999 by the office of the Accountant‑General, Punjab. The petitioner's gratuity was calculated Rs.95,620.48 out of which a sum of Rs.51,763 was withheld and resultantly a sum of Rs.43,857 was paid to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved of the said decision, he filed Writ Petition No.876 of 2000 which was disposed of vide order dated 26‑4‑2000 whereby, the respondent was granted a period of one month to finalize the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Instead of finalizing the appeal the Conservator of. Forest Range Management, Lahore ordered the holding of inquiry under E&D Rules vide order dated 31‑5‑2000. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking an annulment of said order and for the payment of amount withheld by the department.
2. Comments have been called and placed on record.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. It is evident from the comments offered by the department that after order dated 31‑5‑2000 Khizar Hayat Minhas, D.F.O., Range Management Division, Bhakkar was appointed as Inquiry Officer, but he himself stood involved in some cases, so he was removed from holding inquiry and thereafter Naseer Ahmed Khan, D.F.O., Lal Sohanra was appointed as Inquiry Officer. However, Naseer Ahmed Khan also could not hold inquiry on account of his transfer and finally Muhammad Azmat Rabbani, S.D.F.O. was appointed Inquiry Officer. The comments furnished by the department reveal that charge‑sheet was sent to the petitioner but it was not received by him as he refused to accept the service. Accordingly an ex parte inquiry has been conducted' and report has been submitted by Muhammad Azmat Rabbani, S.D.F.O. holding the petitioner responsible for the payment of amount withheld by the department.
5. Instant writ petition has been filed on 9‑10‑2000 whereas order for holding inquiry under E & D Rules was passed on 31‑5‑2000. The inquiry was conducted by Muhammad Azmat Rabbani, S.D.F.O. As per record he sent the charge‑sheet to the petitioner on 7‑11‑2000 through Khalil Ahmed, Tube‑well operator, who returned the same with his. report to the effect that petitioner has refused to accept the charge‑sheet. It is very strange that on the one hand the petitioner has been agitating his claim by filing writ petition in this Court and on the other hand the report is being submitted by Khalil Ahmed, Tube‑well operator that the petitioner has refused to accept the charge‑sheet. The record produced, by the respondents, reveals that after the said report the Inquiry Officer never made any effort to serve the charge‑ sheet through registered post. The requirement of law, on this subject is that '4 if charge‑sheet is not served through ordinary process, then the same be served through proclamation. Admittedly the Inquiry Officer felt satisfied with the report of Tube‑well operator and never resorted to other mode of service. Thus, the so‑called inquiry ,proceedings cannot be considered to be valid proceedings.
6. In the light of facts stated above the writ petition is accepted and the inquiry report of Muhammad Azmat Rabbant, S.D.F.O. is set aside. The D.F.O. is directed to appoint Inquiry Officer, who be directed to serve the charge‑sheet upon the petitioner in accordance with law and then to proceed further in the matter. The inquiry be finalized within a period of two months from today, so the matter of recovery of an dues, if any, outstanding against the petitioner, be finalized.
H.B.T./S‑290/L Order accordingly,