Find a Lawyer

Case No. 268/1851 of 1982, decided on 12th February, 1983.

‑‑ R. 6(3)‑Show‑cause notice ‑ Dispensing with regular enquiry‑Matter needing finding of truth‑Regular enquiry to be held ‑Accused clerk charged for obtaining signatures of Presiding Officer by fraud and misleading‑Charge refuted on grounds that document prepared under direction of Presiding Officer ‑ Defence version ignored and charge established by competent authority on ,, mere conjectures and surmises without holding regular enquiry‑Dismissal order pursuant to show‑cause notice, in circumstances, set aside by Service Tribunal and case remanded to competent authority for proceeding afresh by regular enquiry‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Sh. Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema.

District Attorney for Respondent.

Mr. Javed Iqbal, ex‑Junior Clerk, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar and the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders dated 28th October, 1981, passed by respondent No. 1 and order dated 26th April, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside and the appel lant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. In the year 1981, he was working as Revenue Moharrar to the Assistant Commissioner (Sadar), Bahawalnagar. One Khair‑ud‑Din son of Nawab filed an ejectment suit against Ahmad Din in the Court of Tehsildar, Bahawalnagar. During the hearing of the suit, Ahmad Din, submitted an application that as he has filed a civil suit claiming ownership of land in dispute, the ejectment proceedings should be stopped. The Tehsildar refused to accept this application. Ahmad Din filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, against this order of the Tehsildar. The appeal was, however, rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 16th May, 1981. The appellant who was working as clerk in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar on 9th June, 1981, prepared a warrant for delivery of possession of the land in dispute to Khair‑ud‑Din and allegedly obtained the signatures of the Presiding Officer of the Court (Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar), on the warrant of possession which resulted in dispossession of the tenant Ahmad Din. On 24th June, 1981, an application was presented on behalf of Ahmad Din for reviewing the order regarding issue of warrant of dispossession, whereupon, the Assistant Commissioner came to know that his signatures on the warrant of dispute bad been obtained by his clerk by fraud. He accordingly issued orders to put Ahmad Din again in possession and reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, for proceeding against the appellant who had obtained his signatures on the warrant of dispossession by misguiding him. The appellant was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. He was served a show‑cause notice under section 6 (3) of the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. The appellant denied the allegations against him but his explanation was found un satisfactory and he was removed from service by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order, dated 28th October, 1981. He made an appeal to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur which was also rejected, vide his order, dated 26th April, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was punished on the plea that the appellant has misguided the Presiding Officer i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. Accord ing to the learned counsel for the appellant, the warrant of possession could only be issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the appellant accordingly prepared a warrant of dispossession under the direction of the Assistant Commissioner and after getting his signature, issued the same for execution. Thus, the appellant cannot be held responsible and punished for the act of the other. The learned counsel for the appellant argued vehemently that this matter was of such a nature that it definitely needed a regular enquiry to find out the truth, whether the appellant did mis guide the Presiding Officer or the warrant of dispossession was issued under the directions of the Assistant Commissioner. Thus the proceed ings carried out under section 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, were not sufficient to meet the ends of the justice. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has been proceeded without finding the truth of the case and thus he has been punished unlawfully for the allegation which was not proved against him. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney rebutted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, by submitting that there were sufficient material on the record as evidence to proceed against the appellant under section 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. Furthermore as the allegation stood proved against the appellant, thus, he has been correctly and lawfully punished.

5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also examined the documents placed on record. No doubt the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur has taken pains to go through the case thoroughly, have examined the issued involved in this case, but I feel that the matter was such that it needed a regular enquiry to find out the truth as this was a dispute between the Presiding Officer and his working clerk. In the impugned order, dated 26th April, 1982 the learned Commissioner has made more reliance on the conjectures and surmises which has made the matter one‑sided story, the defence of the appellant has been ignored and no efforts were made by the learned Com missioner to find the truth of the case. To meet the ends of the justice, a regular enquiry should have been conducted to find out the truth, when the matter under dispute was only between the Presiding Officer and his working clerk.

6. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that conducting of a regular enquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, was necessary in this case, so that justice could be done and the truth of the case found out.

7. Keeping the above facts in view, I set aside the impugned orders I remand the case to the competent authority for proceeding afresh against' the appellant under the law as mentioned in the above para. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant for proceeding against him by the authority i. e., the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. The period from the date of his removal from service to that of re‑instatement into service will be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. E 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.