Find a Lawyer

Case No. 563/1984 of 1982, decided on 21st March, 1983.

‑‑ R. 6 (3)‑Show‑cause notice‑Procedure‑‑Justification‑Allega tions of misconduct and inefficiency prima facie established by record‑Adoption of show‑cause notice procedure, in circumstances, held, justified.

‑‑‑ S. 4‑Appeal against removal from service on account of mis conduct and inefficiency‑Quantum of punishment contended to be harsh‑Past service record on examination by Service Tribunal indi cating appellant to be malingrer and checkered career‑Appeal in circumstances, held, devoid of merits and dismissed.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

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

‑Muhammad Arshad, ex‑Forest Guard, Punjab Forest Department, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Conservator of Forests, Multan Region, Multan and the Divisional Forest Officer, Nillibar Forest Division, Sahiwal as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugn ed order dated 5‑12‑1981 and the order dated March, 1982, passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, be set aside and the appeal be accept ed with all benefits of service..

3. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Arshad, ex‑Forest Guard, the appellant, was posted at Sahiwal to Arifwala Road (mile 18 to 28). The Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer, Pakpattan, reported vide his letter No. 32/P, dated 18‑7f 1981, and letter dated 27‑7‑1981, that the appellant bad no interest in the performance of Government duty and the nursery raised under his charge along Arifwala‑Sahiwal Road mile No. 27‑28/L (2 acres) and 23‑24/L (2 acres) had failed up to 50 % and that the new works allocated to be done in his beat had also not been started up to 27‑7‑1981, in spite of repeated orders and instructions issued by the superiors. It was alleged that the young crop was not irrigated properly and that the topping damage was also very common in the beat of the appellant on account of his alleged negligence and poor control. Conse quently the appellant and the co‑accused Muhammad Sharif, Block Officer, were served with show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D). Rules, 1975, for charges of misconduct and inefficiency.

The appellant submitted his explanation to the said show‑cause notice which was considered by the authority and lie was removed from service with immediate effect, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sahiwal vide his order No. 75/SFD, dated 5‑12‑1981. The appellant made an appeal before the Conservator of Forests, Muitan, which was rejected in March, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant hays argued that no full‑fledged enquiry has been conducted in this case and the appellant was only served with a show‑cause notice under rule 6.(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. As no enquiry was held, the appellant was not given an opportunity to defend himself and the pro ceedings conducted under E & D Rules against the appellant, are nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has also vehemently argued that the punishment awarded to the appellant, is not commensurate with the guilt. This punishment has also been discriminated as the co- accused Muhammad Sharif, Block Officer, who was his immediate superior and was required to supervise his work, has only been awarded with a minor punishment of warning to be careful in future and recovery of Government loso, while the appellant has been removed from service.

5. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the impugned order dated 5‑12‑1981, has been passed very correctly by the respondent No. 2 after giving detailed background and the history of the case. It is clear from the impugned order that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, when prima facie charges against the appellant were fully established and thus there was no necessity of holding of a regular enquiry and the service of notice was valid and perfectly in order in the light of the provisions of E & D Rules, so quoted by the appellant's cou6sel. The learned District Attorney has also submitted that the appellant was directly responsible for the supervision of the nursery and the works to be carried out by him as such the punish ment awarded was in accordance with the guilt/misconduct of the appellant; who has been punished correctly and lawfully.

6. We have heard the parties and have also taken pains to peruse the record of the appellant so produced by the respondents. A perusal of the record shows that the allegations of inefficiency and misconduct against the appellant shown in show‑cause notice prima facie were established and thus we are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the service of show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, is perfectly in order and the appellant was also afforded full opportunities to defend himself. On perusal, the service record of the appellant also reveals, that he was malingerer and had all checkered service career ; which is clear from the following facts :‑

(1) He was suspended by D. F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, Bure wala vide his order No. 119/NBFD, dated 8‑2‑1968 for large scale damage of trees standing m the compound of Rest House, Kamir.

(2) Dismissed from service vide D. F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, Burewala, office order No. 49/NBFD, dated 2‑10‑1969.

(3) Re‑instated on acceptance of appeal vide Chief Conservator of Forests, Multan Region, Multan order No. 185/CCFMR, dated 9‑5‑1970.

(4) Punished by D. .F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, at Sahiwal, No. 53/NBFD, dated II‑10‑1972, for absence from duty as follows :‑‑

(i) Absence from 15‑10‑1970 to 21‑10‑1970 treated as leave with out pay.

(ii) One next increment stopped.

(iii) A Character Roll warning to be careful in future.

(5) Removed from service on 4‑5‑1974 for loss/damages of trees vide D. F. O Nillibar Forest Division, order dated 4‑5‑1974. .

(6) Re‑instated vide D. F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, Sahiwal order No. 1381NFD, dated 30‑11‑1976, as a result of acceptance of his appeal No. 101/605/1975 by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.

(7) Charge‑sheeted by D. F. O.,. Nillibar Forest Division, Sahiwal vide his No‑ 6553/E, dated 11‑4‑1977 on the same charges as mentioned in serial No. 5 above.

(8) Lenient view taken and punishment of ; warning, recovery of Government loss of Rs. 723 and suspension period to be treated as leave without pay was ; awarded vide D. F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, Shaiwal, order No. 87/NBFD, dated 7‑12‑1977.

(9) Punished vide D. F. O., Sahiwal Forest Division, Sahiwal, order No. 69/SFD. dated 31‑12‑1980, for absence from duty ; wherein a warning was issued to him and the period of absence was treated as leave without pay.

(10) Removed from service by D. F. O., Sahiwal Forest Division, Sahiwal. vide impugned order No. 75, dated 5‑12‑1981;

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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