Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 317/447 of 1979, decided on 10th August, 1980.

‑‑R. 6(3)‑Enquiry‑Dispensing with‑Charges of corruption support ed by evidence‑Enquiry imperative‑Resort to show‑cause notice, held, not proper‑Consequential order set aside and case remanded to competent authority for decision afresh‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

In this case the appellant Mr. Karamat Ali who was dismissed from the post of Head Clerk Registration Bahawalpur was charged by D. C. Bahawalpur on 28‑3‑1972 as follows: ‑

(i) That the appellant failed to deposit Rs. 245 in the Treasury which he received as Registration Fee from Muhammad Iqbal Rind in the year, 1974.

(ii) That the appellant recovered Rs. 53340.60 on 17‑4‑1974 from Rose 'Textile Mills as Registration Fee but failed to deposit.

2. The competent authority suspended the appellant on 21‑12‑1974 and also decided to dispense with the enquiry. The appellant was accordingly served with a show‑cause notice dated 30‑6‑78, which contained the following charges: ‑

(i) that while posted as Head Registration Clerk, Bahawalpur, during the period from 6‑2‑1966 to 25‑4‑1974, you recovered an amount of Rs. 2,160.75 (Two thousand one hundred sixty and Paisa seventy‑five) as registration fee and did not deposit it in the Government Treasury and embezzled it ;

(ii) that you realised Rs. 72,015/52 (Seventy‑two thousand fifteen and Paisa fifty‑two) during the period from 7‑10‑1972 to 13‑10‑1974 on account of registration fee and deposited Rs. 4,111/56 (four thousand one hundred eleven & Paisa fifty‑six) only in the Government Treasury and embezzled the balance of Rs. 67,903.96 (Sixty‑seven thousand nine hundred three and Paisas ninty‑six) by not depositing in the Government Treasury ;

(iii) that you recovered Rs. 53,340 (Fifty‑three thousand three hundred and forty) on 17‑4‑1974 as registration fee in connection with the of machinery, building and land of Rose Textile mills Bahawalpur in favour of Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd, Bahawalpur and receipt of this amount to them but did not deposit the said in the Government Treasury and thus embezzled the entire amount of Rs. 53,340 (Fifty‑three thousand three hundred and forty). Further that the document in question was returned by you to the party after giving a fictitious number on it i.e. Deed No. 340 of Book 1, Volume 122, page 133 where is actually in the Book a sale deed executed on behalf of Government in favour of one Abdul Reham son of Illahi Bakhsh bearing a stamp duty of Rs. 8 (Eight) only stands entered against the above‑mentioned number;

(iv) that you recovered an amount of Rs. 245 (Two hundred and forty -five) on 14‑4‑1974 from one Muhammad Iqbal Rind as registration fee in respect of Mortgage Deed for obtaining a loan from National Bank of Pakistan and did not deposit it in Government Treasury and embezzled the amount in question ;

(v) that during the course of inspection by the Inspector‑General of Registration, Punjab, Lahore, it was revealed that you took away the record of the fee documents for the period before 1‑10‑1968 and from 4‑10‑1972 to 9‑2‑1975 without any authority from the office of the District Registrar, Bahawalpur; and

(vi) that you left the Headquarter on 19‑11‑1976 without prior" permission of the competent authority.

3. The appellant replied that the enquiry against the appellant was initiated under the West Pakistan Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1960 which make no provision for dispensing with the enquiry. Thus the enquiry in this case could not be dispensed with. It was also submitted that even the nature of allegations against the appellant also warranted the enquiry. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Tribunal in Dost Muhammad and Mubarik Ahmed's case. Second contention raised by the appellant was that in para. 3 of the show‑cause notice the Department failed to indicate the nature of punishment even to the extent of major' or minor'. However, the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Revenue Department as competent authority dismissed the appellant from service vide his order dated 1‑5‑1979. The appellant appears to have filed representation on 28‑5‑1979, which was also rejected on 4‑8‑1979. Consequently the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 5‑9‑1979.

4. The appellant submitted that the show‑cause notice served on him was not proper inasmuch as it completely failed to disclose the nature of the punishment. Thus he was not aware as to the nature of the action against him and he was seriously prejudiced in his defence against the same. On merits the appellant submitted that as Head Clerk it was never his duty to collect the Registration Fee, which was the duty of the Registration Clerk. Thus he should not be penalized for the same. He also submitted that it had been held by this Tribunal in Mubarik Ahmed's case that wherein cases of corruption in which charges were supported by evidence only the enquiry was imperative. In this case the Government pleader had nothing to controvert the contention of the appellant. Since tire circumstances of the case called for an enquiry as repeatedly held by this Tribunal in such like case, we there fore accept this appeal and set aside the order passed by the departmental authority. We have been told that now the power of the competent authority has been vested in the District Registrar under the Registration Act. The case is accordingly remanded to him who will decide the case afresh and while deciding so he will not be influenced by the decision of the Secretary Revenue Department which is hereby set aside.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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