Find a Lawyer

Case No. 42/1767 of 1982, decided on 16th February, 1983.

‑‑R. 6 (3)‑Show‑cause notice‑Charges of inefficiency and misconduct mentioned vaguely not specific and general in nature‑Allegations in consequential dismissal order somewhat different and cont rary to show‑cause notice‑Nature of such allegations needing enquiry by appointment of Enquiry Officer‑Dismissal order, in circum stances, set aside and case remanded for proceedings afresh by regular inquiry after re‑instatement‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

Noor Muhammad, ex‑Forset Guard, has‑ made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Divisional Forest Officer, Bhakkar, Forest Division, Bhakkar, Conservator of Forests, Sargodha Circle, Sargodha and Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 17‑11‑1980, 7‑2‑1981 and 5‑1‑1982, be set aside and appellant be re‑instated in service from the date of suspension vii. 30‑8‑1980, with full benefits of pay allowances, seniority etc.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Noor Muhammad, was working as Forest Guard as Incharge Chak No. 27 to 30/ML, Darya Khan. He was found not taking due interest in performing Government duties and was subsequently placed under suspension by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhakkar. Forest Division, Bhakkar vide his order No. 266‑70/E, dated 30‑8‑1980. The appellant was served with a sh6w‑cause notice vide his office order No. 369/E, dated 16‑9‑1980, Annexure A‑I' and Annexure "B'. The appellant submitted reply to the show‑cause notice which was duly gone through by the authority. He was also heard in person but was found guilty of inefficiency and misconduct and ultimately dismissed from service with immediate effect vide order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhakkar Forest Division, Bhakkar, dated 17‑11‑1980 His period of suspension from 30‑8‑1980 to date was treated as leave without pay. The appellant filed appeal before the respondent No.2 which was dismissed vide his order dated 7‑2‑1981, Annexure R'. He also filed Revision Petition before respondent No. 3 which was rejected vide order dated 5‑1‑1982, Annexure F'‑ Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the show‑cause notice Annexure A‑I and B, served on the appellant by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhakkar, is vague. The charges levelled against the appellant are not specific and are of general nature. The notice has been served under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, but no reason for dispensing with the regular enquiry has been recorded in the same order. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the dismissal order dated 17‑11‑1980, of the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhakkar Forest Division, shows that the appellant was dismissed on the charges which were of serious in nature, but these were not mentioned in the said show‑cause notice. He made further grievance that the charges were of such nature which definitely required regular departmental enquiry so that the appellant could produce evidence in his defence. Thus, the appellant has been condemned without giving any opportunity to produce defence when in fact, the charges were of serious in nature and even allegation of corruption had been levelled against him. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that this Tribunal has already held in so many cases that where there are charges of corruption against an individual, regular enquiry is a must as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975.

5. Learned District Attorney also agreed that the charges of in efficiency and misconduct, as shown in the dismissal order dated 17‑11‑1980 of the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhakkar Forest Division, Bhakkar, are such which require regular enquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline), Rules, 1975.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the record carefully with their assist ance. I am convinced by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been proceeded on the basis of show cause notice under section 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhakkar Forest Division, Bhakkar, which is vague, not specific and general in nature. The allegations given in the dismissal order are also somewhat different and contrary tote show‑cause notice. Furthermore the charges/ allegations given in the dismissal order are of such nature that it was incumbent upon the authority to hold enquiry into the allegations by appointing Enquiry Officer as envisaged in the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 so that the appellant could have been provided opportunity to produce evidence in his defence and prove his innocence. I, therefore, hold that the charges levelled against the appellant have not been proved, as he has not been proceeded properly under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, I set aide the impugned orders and remand the case to the competent authority viz. Divisional Forest Officer, Bhakkar Forest Division, Bhakkar, to proceed against the appellant strictly in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules. 1975. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil sere, to proceed afresh against him by the authority. The period from the date of dismissal to that of re‑instatement, shall be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay. There will be no order as to costs.

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.