Find a Lawyer

Case No. 640/1497 of 1981, decided on 21st June, 1982.

‑‑Rr. 7 & 8-Enquiry‑Evidence‑Recorded behind back of accused and that too not in narrative form‑Such procedure, held, does not fulfil norms and principles of law of evidence‑Conclusions arrived at by Enquiry Officer further found unwarranted from evidence on record but drawn by looking into personal file of accused‑Procedure adopted, held, contrary to r. 7 and fundamental principles of natural justice and impugned order of penalty of removal from service set aside by Service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Muhammad Saleh for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Pitrass Masih, sweeper has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 against the order passed by the authorized officer, Quaid‑i-Azam, Medical College, Bahawalpur through which the services of the appellant have been terminated with effect from 31‑8‑1981.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appellant be restored to his post as the order being against the rules as well as law so laid down in this behalf and he may be re‑instated in service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 5th of August 1981, the Principal Quaid‑i‑Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur vide his order No. 10336‑45/ QMC, dated 5‑8‑1981, suspended the appellant alongwith four officials with effect from 31‑7‑1981 on the allegations of non‑compliance of the orders at the time of serious railway accident on 31‑7‑1981. Dr. Muhammad Riaz, Assistant Professor of Pathology Department was appointed as in Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry into the allega tions of non‑compliance of the orders against the appellant including four others. The services of the appellant were terminated vide order 31‑8‑1981. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the representa tive of the Department‑rather the Enquiry Officer himself and perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. I have looked into the enquiry proceedings and find that same have been conducted in mist haphazard manner due to lack of know' edge of rules by the Enquiry Officer. I pointed out this aspect of the case to the Enquiry Officer who was present in the Court and he conceded that all this was done because he had no experience to conduct such enquiries. It has been further revealed that evidence was recorded behind the back of the appellant and that too not in narrative form, a procedure which does not fulfil the norms and principles as laid down in the Law of Evidence. What has surprised me is that the Enquiry Officer arrived at certain con clusions which are unwarranted from the evidence so recorded by him. He candidly admitted that these conclusions have been drawn by looking into the personal file of the appellant. In this manner it is crystal clear that the proceedings so taken by the Enquiry Officer and by the authorized officer are absolutely in contravention of the rules 7 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules as well as against the fundamental principle of naturals justice .

6. I, in view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders so passed against the appellant and direct that he should be re‑instated in service with all back benefits. However, there will no order as to the costs.

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.