Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 297 of 1979, decided on 24th December, 1979.

------R.6‑Enquiry dispensed with and show‑cause notice issued by Authority‑Prosecution witnesses examined by Authority thereafter and their written statements relied upon while passing order‑Contents of such statements not disclosed to accused‑Action of Authority, in circumstances, held, contrary to provisions of rules and also amounted to denial of due defence opportunity‑Dismissal order in consequence of such procedure set aside with directions that Authority should proceed in accordance with rules.

In this case the appellant an ex‑Reader to the Assistant Commissioner (Sadar) Gujrat, is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, dated 30‑5‑1979, dismissing him from service and the order of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, dated 18‑7‑1977, rejecting his appeal.

2. The appellant was charge‑sheeted on the following grounds:-----

(i) that you while posted as Reader to Assistant Commissioner (Sadar) Gujrat, illegally obtained 27 summary cases under Motor Vehicles Ordinance (as per list already supplied) under your own signatures from the Court of Mr. Shaukat Ali, Magistrate Section 30, Gujrat, in an unauthorised manner ;

(ii) that in order to achieve your selfish motives you did not put up these summary cases before the Presiding Officer for their disposal nor entered these cases in the relevant register ;

(iii) that out of these 27 summary cases you illegally fetched 16 cases (Serial Nos. 12 to 27) from the Court of Mr. Shaukat Ali, Magistrate Section 30, Gujrat, under your own signatures after April, 1978, during the tenure of your present Presiding Officer, Mr. Muhammad Ayub Malik who was even not empowered to try summary cases. This clearly shows that you fraudulently brought these summary cases from another Court and destroyed them for some ulterior motives in connivance with the parties concerned ;

(iv) that you by your mala fide intention wrongly took the stand that these summary cases were received by you in routine dak and subsequently passed on to Summary Clerk to A. C. Headquarter. Both the Summary Clerks of the Court of Mr. Shaukat Ali, Magistrate Section 30, Gujrat (Muhammad Azim) and A. C. Headquarter (Ghulam Hussain) in their written statements contradicated your viewpoint and as such there is every reason to believe that you are telling lie to hide your misdeeds and your submission cannot be relied upon ;

(v) that for the facts and reasons given above you are guilty of grave misconduct within the meanings of Rule 2(b) and 3(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 ; and

(vi) that you are corrupt or can reasonably be considered to be corrupt within the meanings of Rule 3(c) (i) or 3(c) (ii) of the aforesaid Rules. He having been found guilty was served with a show‑causs notice dated 23‑11‑1978 for a major penalty. Eventually he was dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat and his appeal as mentioned above, was rejected by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division.

3. We had summoned the record. From the perusal of the record, it transpired that after the show‑cause notice the statements of Muhammad Amin Reader, Ghulam Hussain, Ahmad of Mr. Shaukat Ali, Section 30 Magistrate, Gujrat were examined and their deposition in their written statements dated 9‑1 ]‑1978, 6‑2‑1979 and 7‑2‑1979 was relied upon by the Authority in his order under appeal. The appellant was never allowed or afforded any opportunity to cross‑examine them. . Secondly it was pointed out that in the show‑cause notice (Annexure A') the Authority had observed that under rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 an enquiry was dispensed with but later the Authority proceeded to make ex parte probes to collect evidence which was inconsistent with the process adopted earlier. The appellant rather submitted that in this case an enquiry was essential to establish the correct position.

4. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The contention of the appellant regarding examination of Muhammad Amin and Ghulam Hussain appears to be well‑founded. We accordingly hold that the relevant provisions contained in the E & D Rules, 1975 have not been correctly followed. (See para. 3 at page 3 of the impugned order‑Annexure E'). The Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat has relied upon the statements of Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Amin the contents of which did not appear to have disclosed to the appellant at any stage. This constituted the denial of due apportunity to the appellant. The contention of the appellant as to the requirement of an enquiry has also considerable force. We accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Depart mental Authority. We direct the authority to proceed in accordance with law.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.