Find a Lawyer

Case No. 363 of 1981, decided on 28th July, 1982.

‑‑‑ R. 6(3)‑Misconduct‑Civil servant found guilty of serious irregularities and loss to Government‑Some recoveries made by his successors-‑Civil servant removed from service‑Contention that civil servant was not given opportunity to defend himself and punishment in circumstances was excessive and unjustified, held, civil servant having acknowledged outstanding recoveries, proceedings against him under rule 6 (3) were held in order and he was considered not a fit person to remain in service.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Appellant.

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

Mushtaq Ahmad, Junior Clerk, Office of Deputy Commissioner Sialkot has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Civil Services Tribunal, Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner Sialkot as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner Sialkot, dated 23rd April, 1981 and Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, dated 30th May, 1981 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

3. Brief history of the case is that the appellant was posted as Regis tration Clerk, Shakargarh and remained there for about 1 year and 2 months. After his transfer from this post a show‑cause notice on the basis of an Inspection Note was served upon the appellant. Mr. S. M. Isa Masood Shah Gillani, Senior Inspector of Stamps Board of Revenue, Punjab Inspector Registration Office, Shakargarh and inter alia observed grave and serious irregularities which were mentioned in detail in a show cause notice No. B. C./18505, dated 4th October, 1980 served upon the appellant by Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. He was also supplied a copy of the above‑mentioned Inspection Report to defend himself. The appel lant submitted his reply to show‑cause notice. The Deputy Commissioner Sialkot perused the reply submitted by the appellant. He was also heard in person. After considering the serious irregularities, discrepancies and loss to the Government, Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot passed a detailed impugned order, dated 23rd April, 1981 wherein the appellant was removed from service with immediate effect. The appellant made an appeal before the Commissioner. Lahore Division, Lahore which was dismissed vide his order dated 30th May, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the allegations were brought forwarded and since the appellant was not holding the charge of the post thus he could not be held responsible for these irregularities pointed out when he was not there. In fact, on pointing of the discrepancies by the Senior Inspector, these were removed and the requisite due amount was got deposited later on. As the recoveries had been made, these charges are uncalled for. The Deputy Commissioner acted arbitrarily in dispensing with the regular enquiry by dealing this case under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servant, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. The appellant was not given an opportunity to defend himself. Similarly, the Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore while rejecting appellant's appeal did not pass a detailed order. The appellant had a service of 7 years and his previous service record bad been good and the punishment awarded to him was excessive.' Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the punishment awarded to the appellant is unjustified, unlawful and the impugned orders be set aside. On the other hand the learned District Attorney, controverted these arguments by saying that serious and grave irregularities by the appellant, the details of which were given in the Inspection Report, hence keeping in view this evidence the charges were proved against him. These charges were further substantiated from the fact that most of the outstanding recoveries pointed out in the inspection note were made by his successors when he was not working on this post and stood trans ferred already. Thus, the appellant cannot absolve himself from these charges and irregularities. The District Attorney further submitted as the charges were prima facie clear and established, the Deputy Com missioner, Sialkot had rightly dispensed with the regular enquiry and proceeded against the appellant under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rule, 1975 correctly.

5. We have given anxious thought to the arguments put forwarded by the appellant's counsel and the learned District Attorney and also perused the record carefully. We agree with the learned District Attorney that proceedings against the appellant under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 were in order. In view of the fact that most of the outstanding recoveries were made later on concerning of his period by other officers/officials when the appellant stood transferred and he had acknowledged the same in the reply to show‑cause notice, thus, these charges against the appellant stood proved. The Deputy Com missioner Sialkot while passing the impugned order had also dealt with his irregularities and discrepancies in detail and had concluded that the allegations of inefficiency, negligence and dishonesty stand fully proved against him. "He is not a fit person to remain in service". Keeping in view the facts of the case, we fully agree with the Deputy Commissioner Sialkot.

6. As per details given above, we hold that there are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no cost to the parties.

M. I . 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.