Find a Lawyer

Case No. 135/1006 of 1981, decided on 27th December, 1983.

‑‑ R. 4 (1) (6) (iii)‑Removal ‑ Legal objections raised, already considered in previous appeal filed by civil servant a Sub‑Engineer, before Service Tribunal when case remanded to Chief Engineer for affording personal hearing to him‑Order of Chief Engineer reject ing appeal passed after due consideration of defence of such civil servant and enquiry conducted against him also found in accordance with provisions of Rules‑Removal of civil servant, held, rightly ordered by competent authority.

M. A. Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Saeed Akhtar Shah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Province of Punjab through Secretary, Com munications and Works Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, the Chief Engineer Highway Circle, Lahore and the Superintending Engineer, High way Circle, Multan as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 9th February, 1981 be set aside, the enquiry proceed ings be quashed and the appellant be directed to be re‑instated into service with full back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as Sub. Engineer at Highway Division, Muzaffargarh. An enquiry was conducted in connection with misappropriation/embezzlement of Government Stores at Ghazi Ghat. In pursuance of this enquiry the appellant was charge sheeted. Mr. Farooq Ahmad Sheikh, Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Multan was appointed Enquiry Officer. On finalization of the enquiry, the appellant was found guilty of misconduct. The appellant was removed from service besides recovery of Rs. 28,864.45 to be made as arrears of Land Revenue, vide the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Multan Office Order No. 112‑A, dated 31st January, 1975. The appellant made an appeal to the Chief Engineer, Highway Punjab, Lahore which was rejected, vide order dated 29th December, 1975. The appellant filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. His Appeal No. 43/78 of 1976 was announced, vide judgment, dated 18th September, 1979. The case was remanded to the Chief Engineer, Highway for hearing the appellant and coming to a decision thereafter. In compliance to the above judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, the appellant was heard in person by the Chief Engineer, Highways. His appeal was considered and rejected, vide his order, dated 9th February, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case on the following legal grounds :‑‑

(1) That the impugned order is no order in the eye of law inasmuch as it is not a speaking order.

(2) The Enquiry Officer bad not conducted the enquiry properly. The Enquiry Officer had misconducted himself inasmuch as he conducted the enquiry in utter violation of the procedure laid down for such enquiry. The appellant was not afforded the opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses and also he was not allowed to put up his proper defence.

(3) The show‑cause notice was also defective in law.

The appellant's counsel has submitted that the appellant has raised the above and other objections before the respondent No. 2, during the course of arguments, but these were not attended to with the result that the appellant has been gravely prejudiced. Thus, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has resisted the above legal objections and it has been submitted that this appeal had already came before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. All such objections concerning this appeal i. e. role of the Enquiry Officer, show cause notice, awarding of punishments etc., were considered by the Service Tribunal and the case was remanded to the Chief Engineer, Highway Department respondent No. 2 only with the observation that the personal hearing be afforded to the appellant. This was complied accordingly by the respondent No. 2, i. e. the Chief Engineer, Highway Department, Lahore. The appellant was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the defence put forth by the appellant. Thus, the legal objections raised by the appellant do not hold any ground and be ignored. On the merits, the learned District Attorney has relied on the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and has submitted that this is an elaborate and well‑considered document through which the appellant has been held guilty for mis appropriation/embezzlement of Government Stores. Thus, the penalty imposed upon the appellant is justified and correct.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties. We have also perused our judgment, dated 18th September, 1979 in case of Appeal No. 43/78 of 1976 of the appellant, through which the case was remanded to the Chief Engineer, Highway Department for afford ing the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The judgment also refers about Farooq Abroad Sheikh, Executive Engineer's appointment as an Enquiry Officer, the contention of the appellant regarding that two penalties cannot be levied and the appeal was decided by the Chief Engineer ex parse etc. It is, thus clear that the legal objections now raised by the appellant's counsel at the time of arguments of this case and also in this appeal, were already considered while the case was remanded by this Tribunal to the Chief Engineer with the clear direction that the appel lant be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. We find that in compliance to above judgment the appellant was heard in person by respondent No. 2, i. e., Chief Engineer, Highway Department, Lahore. The appeal of the appellant was considered and the impugned order was passed by him after due consideration of his defence, on 9th February, 1981. Keeping the above facts in view there is no force in the legal objections raised by the appellant/appellant's counsel and the objection are uncalled for.

7. To study the case on merits, we have gone carefully through the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer i. e. Farooq Ahmad Sheikh, Execu tive Engineer. The enquiry was conducted against the appellant for mis appropriation/embezzlement of Government Stores worth Rs. 1,52,661.50, wilful absence from duty and in subordination etc. The Enquiry Office has dealt in detail with the charges levelled against the appellant, the defence put forth by him, relevant record etc., and has held the appellant responsible for the shortage of Government materials to the extent of Rs. 28,864.45 only (against alleged Rs. 1,52,661.50), alongwith some other charges as well. We also find that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the provision of the Rules.

8. Keeping in view the above analysis of the case, there is no merit in this appeal and is dismissed as such.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. 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.