Find a Lawyer

Case No, 50811949 of 1982, decided on 16th May; 1983.

‑‑Disciplinary action‑Strong presumption in favour of prosecution case in absence of evidence to show that accused made victim of conspiracy‑Dismissal order impugned on plea of malice on part of competent authority‑Record indicating sufficient proof to establish charge of misconduct‑‑Charge established in departmental enquiry‑Nothing to establish ill‑will or malice‑Interference, in circumstances, refused by Service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974),

Ch. Abdul Rashid for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

‑ Ahmad Din, ex-Chaukidar, Government Commercial Institute, Sialkot, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Principal, Government Commercial Institute at Fort, Sialkot City, Director Technical Education Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order of dismissal dated 26th January, 1982 and appellate order dated 4th February, 1982, be set aside and he be reinstated in service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Chowkidar on 1st July, 1973 and served the Department for about 12 years. The appellant was charge‑sheeted on 20th January, 1982. He submitted his explanation on 25th January, 1982. An enquiry was held and Mr. Abdul Hafiz, Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence, found him guilty of the charges and recommended stern action against him. The competent authority gave him personal hearing and after going through the report as well as the circumstances of the case, dismissed the appellant from service on 26th January, 1982: He filed appeal before the Director, Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore, who also rejected the same on 4th September, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the Principal himself who passed the impugned order and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly based his case on malice, which according to him, was in the mind of the competent authority, who was bent upon dismissing the appellant from service. With regard to the number of complaints so made against him by a number of people, it has been submitted that all this was a put up show, whereas actually there was no basis for the same. In the end the learned counsel has made a grievance that the Principal is a cruel person, whose treatment with other civil servants of the Institute, is also unfair and instead of looking into the grievance of the appellant, has proceeded to dismiss him from service without judging all the pros and cons of the case.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant is a bad egg who had become nuisance to the Institute and a large number of complaints started pouring against him, which have been placed on the record to show the conduct of the appellant vis‑a‑vis the administration of the said Institution. It has been further argued that the case was fully probed into through regular enquiry by a senior officer and it became crystal clear that the appellant, had been insulting and irritating his superiors on a number of occasions and had been responsible for creating hinderance in the official duty.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find from the record that the appellant grappled with Iqbal Khalid and not only abused but also injured him and when Ghulam Muhammad Chawkidar intervened to rescue Iqbal Khalid from the on slaught of the appellant, he chewed the thumb of Ghulam Muhammad Chowkidar and thus caused him grievous injury. We have also looked into the large number of complaints including a resolution passed by the staff as well as by the students, in which they unanimously clammered of the dismissal of the appellant, due to his insulting behaviour and immoral activities within the premises of the Institute. While going through the defence of the appellant, we do not find an iota of defence, which could establish that the respondents had any personal enmity with anyone of them or that the competent Authority bore ill‑will or malice towards him. There would be strop presumption in favour of the prosecution case in the absence of any such' evidence on the part of the appellant, to show that he has been victim of some conspiracy and has been wrongly dismissed.

8. In view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order so passed by the competent authority as well as the appellate order by respondent No. 2 rejecting the appeal of the appellant. The result is, we dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.

A. B, 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.