Find a Lawyer

Case No. 28311715 of 1982, decided on 26th December, 1983.

-- R. 4 (1) (b) (1)-Reduction in pay - Facts established from admission of civil servant that during course of inspection work at site was got done by him without preparing estimates-Evidence in support coming from many of co-accused and such evidence not found free from doubt-Civil servant afforded full opportunity to defend himself before Enquiry Officer as well as before competent authority-Penalty of reduction of pay, held, rightly imposed.

Riaz Anwar for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

. -Muhammad Bakhsh Khosa, has Died this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order of the respon dent, dated 31st January, 1982, be set aside alongwith consequential benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under :---

The appellant was employed as Sub-Engineer in the Local Govern ment and Rural Development Department under the respondent. He was served with a charge-sheet on 311th June, 1979 by the Director-General Local Government and Rural Development Department Punjab, Lahore, acting as an Authorised Officer. It was alleged that he committed gross negligence in supervising the work and prepared false report with regard to the damage caused by hill torrent in July/August, 1976 to Katcha road from Tibbi Qaisrani to Nutkani (9 miles) including culverts and also acted neglectfully in supervising the construction and lack of maintenance after the construction on the project of construction/ metalling of road from Jhok Uttra Mehtam measuring 4 miles which caused in consistent laying of stone metelling. The appellant submitted reply to the Authorised Officer. A joint inquiry was held against the appellant and against a number of persons. The Enquiry Officer after recording evi dence, submitted his report to the authority, in which he found charge No. 1 was proved and charge No. 2 was partially proved. On the receipt of inquiry report, the respondent held the appellant guilty of the charges and imposed reduction of pay in three steps under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. The appellant filed review petition before the respondent, but as there was no response from the same, this appeal has been filed after a lapse of 90 days. However, the said review has now been rejected.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly (relied on the evidence so recorded by, the Enquiry Officer and has submitted that the entire evidence was in favour of the appellant, the Enquiry Officer was not justified to hold him guilty.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was not correct as there were sufficient evidence on the record to show that he had been rightly held guilty of the negligence both during the enquiry so conducted by the Enquiry Officer as well as by his own admission so made by him before the Martial Law Enquiry Committee headed by Lt.-Col. M. Ashraf Chaudhry.

7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the parties and have carefully perused the entire evidence so recorded by the Enquiry Officer consisting of Muhammad Ali Shakir, Ch. Abdul Ghani, Manzoor Ahmad, Ch. Muhammad Aslam and Ch. Muhammad Siddique, as well as the statement of the appellant himself. What we find is that the Enquiry Officer has candidly admitted that Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Ch. Muhammad Aslam and Manzoor Ahmad fully supported the contention of the appellant that he was not responsible for any negligence and have categorically stated that the appellant had been working properly. It has also been conceded by the Enquiry Officer that all the prosecution witnesses stated that most of the loss had occurred due to the flood and met on self-help basis without charging to the work. In this manner we have no hesitation to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been exonerated by most of the prosecution witnesses, but the fact remained that during cross-examination of Muhammad Aslam Assistant Engineer, on whom the appellant bad so relied, it was conceded by him that during the course of site inspection it was found that the work had been done without preparing estimates at a number of sites. It was1 also observed by the Enquiry Officer that the appellant had already admitted before the Martial Law Team that he. started the damaged work without preparing the estimates and thus stood rebutted with his own statement. To satisfy ourselves we have looked into the admission of the appellant before the Martial Law Enquiry Commission and have no reason to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in this respect. We' also do not attach much importance to the evidence of a number of P. Ws. who appeared before the Enquiry Officer, as we find many of them co-accused and naturally they would like to save their own skin, by which c pronouncing the appellant as absolutely innocent. The appellant has been proceeded in accordance with the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and was given full opportunity to defend himself both before the Enquiry Officer, as well as by the competent authority. The Martial Law Enquiry Com-, mission had taken lot of pains to look into the matter by recording extensive evidence and same was done by the Enquiry Officer, therefore we do not see any reason to hold that in both these proceedings the case of appellant had either been misjudged or examined from an angle which the app was biased. The statement of the appellant which is very exhaustive, was also taken into consideration by the competent authority and it was found that the same was not satisfactory. Whatever the case may be, the appellant cannot escape from his own admission and cannot be allowed to change his stand while appearing before the Enquiry Officer.

8. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. 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.