Find a Lawyer

Case No. 546/1976 of 1982, decided on 7th August, 1983.

‑‑‑ Disciplinary action ‑ Discrimination ‑ Not justified‑Inspector and Sub‑Inspector of Co‑operative Societies co‑accused of same charges ‑ Separate inquiries by different Enquiry Officers held ‑ Sub‑Inspector exonerated by respective Enquiry Officer- Inspector (Appellant) held guilty of charges by his Enquiry Officer and ultimately inflicted with penalty of reduction in rank -Appellant's request for change of Enquiry Officer on grounds of bias rejected‑Service Tribunal, m circumstances, placing reliance on findings of enquiry of Enquiry Officer against co‑accused in order to remove discrimination‑Appellant, held, to be treated at par with co‑accused ‑ Impugned penalty order set aside ‑ Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Ilahi Bakhsh Vijdani for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th August, 1983.

Chaudhary Abdul Aziz, Educational Assistant, Co‑operative Societies, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Co‑operative Department, Lahore, Registrar Co‑operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore, Mr. Rashid Ahmad Hahmi, Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies (Technical), Lahore, Chaudhary Sardar Muhammad, Assistant Registrar Co‑operative Societies, Hafizabad and Chaudhary Abdul Wahid, Assistant Registrar (Retired) c/o Circle Registrar Co‑operative Societies, Sheikhupura, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 13th April, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside. He has also prayed that recommendations of respondent No. 3 and enquiry report of respondent No. 4, dated 27th May, 1981 be declared as illegal, void and without lawful authority and respondent No. 2 be directed to post the appellant as Inspector for Co‑operative Societies.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Inspector Co‑operative Societies at Nankana Sahib, during the year 1980, was allegedly found guilty of misconduct in respect of advancing irregular loan of Rs. 20,000 to Water Users Co‑operative Society, Chak No. 17 G. B. Karial, in collaboration with Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector. The appellant was placed under suspension vide order dated 14th December, 1980 of respondent No. 2. The appellant was served with a charge‑sheet alongwith state of allegations vide order dated 20th January, 1981 of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4, Chaudhary Sardar Muhammad, Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge‑sheet on 17th February, 1981. The inquiry was completed by the Inquiry Officer, who submitted his inquiry report on 27th May, 1981 to the respondent No. 3. A show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant by respondent No. 2, dated 11th February, 1982. A reply was submitted for the same. The appellant was heard in person by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, imposed the penalty of reduction in rank to the appellant, from Inspector to Sub‑Inspector, Co‑operative Societies vide order dated 13th April, 1982. The appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1, on 9th May, 1982 which has not since been disposed off although the period of 90 days has elapsed since the appeal was filed. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the main charge against the appellant in the charge‑sheet was that he in collaboration with Mr. Muhammad Saeed. Sub‑Inspector had arranged an irregular advance amounting to Rs. 20,000 to a Water Users Co‑operative Society. The other charges were outcome of this main charge. Statement of allegations contained eight charges against the appellant. Whatever the serious charges have been raised in his statement of allegations, Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector is also co‑accused with the appellant. Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector, was also charge‑sheeted and a separate Inquiry Officer was appointed in his case. Chaudhary Sardar Muhammad, Assistant Registrar, was the Inquiry Officer in case of the appellant while Mr. Muhammad Akram, Inspector Co‑operative Societies was Inquiry Officer in case of Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector. The Inquiry Officer in case of Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector, exonerated him of all the charges. It resulted in absolving him from all the charges by the Authorised Officer, Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Nankana Sahib, acquitting him honourably, vide order dated 31st August, 1982. On the other hand the appellant was held guilty of charges by his Inquiry Officer. In was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this was as a result of long‑standing personal differences with the Inquiry Officer. As the appellant did not expect a fairplay from his Inquiry Officer, he had requested for changing of the Inquiry Officer on 28th February, 1981 (Annexure E'). The request of the appellant was not acceded by the respondent No. 3 which was rejected on 12th March, 1981 (Annexure F'). Thus, the enquiry report of the appellant's Inquiry Officer is based, on mala fides and is biased. The action taken by the Authorised Officer and the Authority" in punishing the appellant on this enquiry report is unjustified and nullity in the eyes of law as the appellant has been punished, without the charges having been proved against him. A reliance was also placed on the enquiries of both the Inquiry Officers i.e., Ch. Sardar Muhammad and Muhammad Akram (Annexures 'O' and V') by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was submitted by him that the enquiry report of Ch. Sardar Muhammad is not only biased but also has been concluded on conjectures and surmises ; whereas the inquiry report of Muhammad Akram has been concluded on solid arguments and recommendations by that Inquiry Officer. On the basis of this inquiry, Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector co‑accused in the same charges as were against the appellant, was acquitted honourably, the appellant should also have been acquitted honourably by his Authorised Officer/ Authority. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the action in punishing the appellant is, thus, discriminatory, uncalled for and unjustified.

5. Controverting the above arguments, the learned District Attorney could not successfully rebut the view point put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant for discriminate punishment to the appellant vii‑a‑vii Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector, the other co‑accused in this case. However, the learned District Attorney relying on the inquiry report of Ch. Sardar Muhammad, the Inquiry Officer of the appellant, submitted that the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report has proved the charges against the appellant and thus, the appellant is guilty of misconduct and has been punished correctly.

6. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case carefully. The appellant was charge‑sheeted on the following charges :‑

(i) You in collaboration with Mr. Muhammad Saeed S.‑I. Co‑operative Societies Chak No. 5 G. B. Tehsil Nankana Sahib, arranged an irregular advance amounting to Rs. 20,000 to Water Users Co -operative Society Chak No. 17 G. B. Karial on 24th September, 1980 for the purpose of installation of Nakkas, which in fact was not existing and even a single Nakka was not actually available or supplied to the Society. This conduct of your tentamounts to misuse of official position and misappropriation of funds of the Bank.

(ii) You committed serious acts of indiscipline, insubordination as enumerated in the statement of allegations.

It is clear from the main charge noted under item (i) above, that Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector. is co‑accused with the appellant. The statement of allegations attached with the above charge‑sheet also contains three other serious charges including the charge at item No. (i) above where Muhammad Saeed is also a co‑accused. The remaining 4 charges mentioned in the statement of allegations against the appellant are putcome of these 4 serious charges.

7. The respondents adopted abnormal procedure in dealing with this case. Though the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Saeed, were co. accused in this case, but separate inquiry officers were appointed and their cases were also dealt by the separate Inquiry Officers. This bad made the whole issue debatable and also discriminatory. Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector has been exonerated by his Inquiry Officer and acquitted honourably by his Authorised Officer while the appellant has been held guilty of the charges by his Inquiry Officer and has been consequently punished.

8. To adjudicate this case, now there are two different inquiry reports and two different actions of Authorised Officers/Authority before the Tribunal. The inquiry report of Ch. Sardar Muhammad, Inquiry Officer of the appellant is further debatable on the basis that the appellant from the very beginning, had not shown faith on him and requested for changing the inquiry Officer which was not accepted and rejected. In such circumstance to meet the end of the justice and on the basis of fairplay and equity, I consider that reliance on the 2nd inquiry report of Mr. Muhammad Akram is more reasonable and sound. Adopting of this inquiry report, will also remove the discrimination and doubts as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.

9. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that same action b: taken against the appellant as was taken against the other co‑accused, Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector, so that there is no discrimination and injustice in this case. As Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Sub‑Inspector has been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer and acquitted honourably by the Authorised Officer, the appellant is also to be treated at par. The impugned order dated 13th April, 1982 of respondent No. 2, which has not been concluded on the basis of a sound inquiry report is set aside having no effect at all. The result is that the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the appellant shall continue as Inspector of Co‑operative Societies from 13th April, 1982 the date of his reversion as Sub‑Inspector, with all back benefits.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. H. 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.