Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 158/226 of 1978, decided on 24th September, 1979.

-------S. 4‑Compulsory retirement‑Inquiry held‑Show‑cause notice issued in light of enquiry report‑Reply to show‑cause notice considered by competent authority and matter remained pending till decision of criminal proceedings involving same offence as alleged in departmental proceedings‑Compulsory retirement order passed after 2 years by successor competent authority without taking into consideration reply to show‑cause notice‑Action not approved by Service Tribunal and matter remanded for consideration de novo.

This is an appeal against com pulsory retirement. Muhammad Anwar, the appellant, while serving as Patwari in village Boola Bala in Tehsil Bhalwal, was found guilty of having forged the signatures and thumb impression of a number of people in order to draw their quota of fertilizer from the Agricultural Development Bank, which quota he was alleged to have sold in the black‑market. After an enquiry in which he was found guilty by an Extra‑Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Bhalwal, on 12‑4‑1975 to show cause why major penalty should not be imposed upon him. The appellant replied to the show‑cause notice on 22‑4‑1975 refuting the allegations. The next day, on 23‑4‑1975, the A. C./ Collector, Bhalwal, recorded an order after hearing the appellant in person that "the enquiry file against him shall remain pending till the decision of the competent Court", the reference being to the case initiated for the same offence in P. S. Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Sargodha, against the appellant. Later, however, after more than two years, the A. C./Collector passed an order on 22‑8‑1977 retiring the appellant compulsorily from service with immediate effect. This was upheld on 30‑4‑1978 by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division.

It has been stated before us on behalf of the appellant that the signatures and thumb impressions which he is alleged to have counterfeited in order to draw the fertilizer were wrongly construed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant contended that he had filed up the forms on behalf of various claimants of the fertilizer and nearly attested the fact that they were bona fide landowners and thus entitled to the issue of fertilizer. He had not drawn any fertilizer as such and the question of its sale by him in the black‑market did not arise at all. Nor, according to him, was this charge borne out by the evidence of about score of witnesses, most of whom merely stated before the Enquiry Officer that they had heard of the charge'. It was further stated that the checking of the bona fides of each applicant was the responsibility of the Bank officials as was the actual issue of the fertilizer to the applicant landowners.

Without in any way commenting on the merits of the case, we feel that the explanation dated 22‑4‑1975 of the appellant to the show‑cause notice of 12‑4‑1975 was not properly examined by the Assistant Commissioner in all its details; for instance in regard to the respective responsibilities of the Bank officials and the Patwari concerned in the issue of the fertilizer. Mereover, in the A. C.'s order of compulsory retirement made on 22-8‑1978 the appellant's reply of 24‑4‑1975 to the show‑cause notice was not taken into account on grounds of non‑existence. Also, whereas the hearing was given to the appellant on 23‑4‑1975 by one A C/Collector, the order of retirement was made on 22‑8‑1978 by a successor A C/Collector who had not heard the appellant personally. The Commissioner's order dated 30‑4‑1978 also failed to take notice of the appellant's side of the case as contained in his reply to the show‑cause notice.

In view of the above observations we remand the case to the A C/ Collector, Bhalwal, for consideration de novo.

Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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