Find a Lawyer

Case No. 306/1962 of 1982, decided on 7th April, 1984.

‑‑ R. 6 (3)‑Dismissal from service on charges of misconduct and neglectful performance‑Regular enquiry conducted ‑ Appellant having admitted charges in his statements, appeal, held, without any force.

Nur Muhammad Chandia for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

Jamshaid Ahmad Kamtar, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which be has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore as respondent.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that his dismissal order issued by Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department may be set aside and be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. The facts of the case and grounds for the appeal are that the appellant was posted as Sub‑Engineer in the Local Government and Rural Development Department at Jampur the then District D. G. Khan. Later on be was served with the charge‑sheet by the Director‑General, L. G. and R. D., Lahore on the following counts :‑

"(i) You made false entries in the measurement book No. 1360 and 1369 which shows your mala fide intention to facilitate misappropria tion of funds on the construction of Jampur Choti Road approved by the Peoples District Works Council under World Food Programme technically sanctioned for Rs. 8,05,100.

(ii) You showed neglectful performance of your duties during the construction of Well at Manger Wala in De‑excluded Area of D. G. Khan District adjacent to Rajanpur Sub‑Division."

The appellant submitted reply to the above charges, but being unsatisfactory reply the Secretary. L. G. and R. D. vide order dated 31st January, 1982 dismissed the appellant. He submitted a review petition which was not answered. The appellant further added that regarding charge No. (i) above payment stood already ; made for the earthwork of 42 lakh Cft. executed by his predecessor and he was answerable only to 12 lakh Cft. made in two instalments amounting to Rs. 50,000. He was responsible only for earthwork of 3 miles from Jatoiwala to Choti but the measure ment was made of the entire route. The appellant also stated that this measurement was made after lapse of two years instead of prescribed period of six weeks. As regards charge No. (ii) above for the construction of well at Mangerwala he made payment of Advance Rs. 10,000 against the total cost of Rs. 25,000 to the Project Leader. The necessary material was duly inspected by the appellant. After this the remaining amount was released to the Project Leader. Due to his engagement in other works he could not visit this work and if some false reports were prepared, the Project Leader and Secretary, Union Council are res ponsible.

4. We have beard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney for respondents and have also perused the relevant record.

5. The appellant's counsel raised the same points as mentioned in para. 3 above in favour of the appellant. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that after service of the charge‑sheet alongwith the statement of allegation the enquiry was conducted by Director. Local Government, Multan who found the appellant guilty of both the charges, The enquiry report was sent to the Secretary, L. G. and R. D. who dismissed the appellant. From the comments of the respondent as well as statement dated 18th September, 1978 of the appellant it is on the record that in the statement at appendix‑I the appellant had mentioned that he completed the earthwork of 12,43,500 cft. on the same road but when confronted with the entries in the measurement book on "question and answer" he admitted that had made entries in the measurement book of 7.85,000 cft. whereas they were cut down to 3;05,891 cft. by the Assistant Engineer, People Works Programme on his spot visit and verification of work in the appellant supervision. The appellant bad admitted that he made representation for the said discrepancy rather he further admitted that he blindly signed the muster roll in the entries of the measurement book. He admitted that muster roll was a prerequisite. On being questioned whether the account was not operated jointly by the appellant he replied that he had signed the cheque. As such not only the charge is proved by the enquiry report but also admitted by the appellant himself. As regards second charge the appellant apart from the enquiry report it is also admitted by the appellant that he never visited Manger Wala but in spite of that he released the other instalment. For argument if he released first payment he should not have released the second instalment without execution of the work and there was not any trace of the material at the site muchless execution of the work. The plea of the appellant is absurd that the site was far‑flung and he could not visit the place.

6. Hence, there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no order as to costs.

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.