Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FARZAND H LI VS Respondent: DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, BAHAWALPURHonorable Justice Abdul Hamid Chaudhry
1984 P L C (C
1984 P L C (C. S.) 921
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Before Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member,
FARZAND ALI
versus
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER
Case No. 478/2001 of 1982, decided on 20th August, 1983.
Civil service‑--
‑‑ Charges of corruption‑Dismissal from service without holding regular inquiry‑Allegations in show‑cause notice clearly of corrup tion for which a regular inquiry was necessary to give civil servant an opportunity for producing witnesses in defence‑In absence of such inquiry, civil servant held, punished without proving charges against him‑Case remanded to competent authority for proceeding in accor dance with law and civil servant re‑instated in service to bestow upon him status of a civil servant to enable competent authority to proceed against him.
1980 P L C (C. S.) 418 ; 1980 P L C (C. S.) 611 ; 1980 P L C (C. S.) 562 and P L D 1974 (C. S.) 493 ref.
Muhammad Hanif Khan for Appellant. A. G. Humayun. District Attorney for Respondents.
JUDGMENT
The appellant has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Divisional Forest Officer, Bahawalpur and the Conservator of Bahawalpur Forest Circle, Bahawalpur, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order dated 5th July, 1981 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer and order dated 2nd January, 1982 passed in appeal be declared illegal, without lawful authority and a nullity in the eye of law. It has also been further prayed by the appellant that these impugned orders be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Forest Guard Ahmadpur Sharkia range in Bahawalpur Forest Division, in the year 1981. He was served with a show‑cause notice, dated 17th May, 1981 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bahawalpur Forest Division, alleging five allegations against the appellant. The reply to this show‑cause notice was submitted by the appellant which was considered by Divisional Forest Officer, Bahawalpur and the appellant was dismissed from service vide his impugned order dated 5th July, 1981. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Conservator of Forest, Bahawalpur which was rejected vide order dated 2nd January, 1982. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations mentioned in the show‑cause notice are of serious nature and also contains the charges of corruption. No regular inquiry was held in this case to find out the truth in the matter and the appellant was not afforded opportunities to produce the witnesses in his defence. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has already been held by the Tribunal in so many cases that conducting of a regular inquiry in a case involving charges of corruption is a must to provide an opportunity to the accused person to put up his defence. Thus, the charges so levelled against the appellant have not been proved against him and he has been punished without any justification. The charges mentioned in the show‑cause notice and reply submitted by the appellant to these charges to respondent No. 1, was read out by the learned counsel for the appellant to prove that the appellant has not been given opportunities to produce the witnesses in his defence and the punishment has been awarded without proving the charges against the appellant who is an innocent person. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Divisional Forest Officer, Bahawalpur was also inimical towards the appellant In this particular case, the details given in the show‑cause notice, show that the Divisional Forest Officer, has acted as judge in his own cause. The punishment to the appellant is, thus, as a result of mala fide as action by the authority.
5. Controverting the above arguments the learned District Attorney has submitted that as the charges prima facie stood proved on the record, hence issuance of the show‑cause notice by respondent No. 1 was in order. Furthermore, the appellant was heard in person and was given the opportunity to defend himself. Thus, he has been proceeded against lawfully and has not been prejudiced in the matter as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. As the appellant has been found guilty of misconduct, hence he has been punished correctly. It has also been submitted by the learned District Attorney that appeal is time‑barred. The appeal of the appellant was rejected by respondent No. 2, on 2nd January, 1982 and the appellant should have filed an appeal to the Tribunal within 30 days of this date. The appellant has, however, filed his appeal on 20th September, 1982. Hence the appeal is time‑barred by more than 7 months and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
6. Rebutting the objection of learned District Attorney regarding time limit, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Annexure `E' with the appeal, showing that the impugned order dated 2nd January, 1982 though was issued on 2nd January, 1982 but has been actually conveyed and received by the appellant on 21st August, 1982. Thus, the appeal has been filed within time i.e. within 30 days of the receipt of the above impugned order. An envelop in original, posted by Conservator of Forest Office, on this account was also produced by the appellant to prove that the impugned order dated 2nd January, 1982 of respondent .No. 2, was actually delivered to the appellant on 21st August, 1982.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record so provided by the appellant/ respondents.
8. As far as the objections of the learned District Attorney for the appeal being time‑barred is concerned, I have perused the record of Conservator of Forest, Bahawalpur Circle, Bahawalpur. The record shows that the impugned order dated 2nd January, 1982 of the respondent No. 2, though sent twice to the appellant was not received by him and another copy of the same was sent to the appellant alongwith the letter No. 267/E, dated 19th August, 1982 by the office of the Conservator of Forest, Bahawalpur. Thus, the contention of the appellant counsel/appellant is correct that the impugned order dated 2nd January, 1982 of respondent No. 2, was received by the appellant on 21st August, 1982. From this fact, it is clear that the appeal has been submitted by the appel lant in time and the objection of the learned District Attorney that the appeal is time‑barred, is not correct.
9. I have carefully scrutinized the show‑cause notice and allegations mentioned therein. The allegations/charges Nos. 1 to 4 contained in the show-cause notice are clearly of corruption against the appellant. A regular enquiry should have been conducted against the appellant to give him an opportunity for producing the witnesses in his defence. This Tribunal has already held, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 1980 P L C (C. S.) 418, 1980 P L C (C. S,) 611, 1980 P L C (C. S.) 562 and P L D 1974 S C 393 that in cases involving charges of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to hold a regular inquiry. Since the provisions of rules have not been complied with in this case of holding a regular inquiry, hence impugned orders cannot be sustained. This fact cannot also be ignored that the appellant's counsel has vehemently argued that the appellant has not been provided an opportunity to produce the witnesses and the appellant has been punished without proving the charges against him.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Bahawalpur, for proceeding in accordance with the law as indicated above. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable the authority to proceed against him. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service will also be decided by the competent authority after conducting the proceedings in accordance with the law, as indicated above.
There will be no order as to costs.
M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.