Find a Lawyer

Case No. 349/306 of 1983, decided on 16th February, 1984.

‑‑ Rr. 7(8) & 8‑Enquiry Officer exonerating accused of alleged charge‑Authority imposing minor penalty‑No reasons given to disagree with findings of inquiry and penalty order not a speaking order‑Service Tribunal, in circumstances, accepting appeal against impugned penalty order and setting it aside‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Siddique Ahmad, Sub‑Engineer, Public Health Water Works, Kundian, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Faisalabad and Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 31st May, 1982, 16th May, 1983 and 28th June, 1983 be set aside and respondents be directed to treat the period of suspension as on duty and to pay full salary and allowances for the period of suspension.

3. Brief facts are that respondent No. 1 issued charge‑sheet and statement of allegations in the name of the appellant in which it was stated that while posted as Sub‑Engineer Incharge of Water Supply Scheme, Sargodha, he inserted a wooden plug in 12" I. D/Pipeline behind Shama Cinema, Sargodha to stop the water flow in the Pipeline on personal grounds intending that the pipeline could not be tested. Appellant submitted reply in which be denied all the allegations. Vide order dated 7th March, 1982, the appellant was suspended from service on the said allegation. Enquiry was entrusted to Mr. Abdul Majeed Javed, Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division No. 1, Faisalabad, who held detailed inquiry on the spot. While concluding this inquiry, it was held by the said Enquiry Officer that Sub‑Engineer (appellant) was not liable to any major and minor penalty under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, and as such he may be exonerated of the charges and re‑instated after issuing simple warning." However, despite exoneration by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent No. I imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment and censure on the appellant. Appellant filed appeal against the said order which was dismissed by respondent vide order, dated 16th May, 1983, which was endorsed to the appellant on 28th June, 1983. Hence this appeal.

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 of this case including the inquiry report carefully with their assistance.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was no evidence whatsoever on record to incriminate the appellant for the charge as contained in the charge‑sheet and statement of allegations. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, charges originally levelled against the appellant were based on conjecture and surmises and the result of the enquiry proved that such like charges would not be sustained as there was no evidence in support of the same, so much so even the complainant himself appeared before the Enquiry Officer and narrated that the story was fabricated against him. The mainstay of the entire case of the appellant is on the conclusion of the inquiry report which according to him, does not hold the appellant guilty. While concluding his case, it was submitted that the appellant had put in 19 years service and was confirmed as Sub Engineer on 1st June, 1965. His previous service record in quite unble mished and he performed his duties with full devotion and sincerity. A great stress was laid on the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in P L D 1977 S C 24, that first lapse cannot be dealt with under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules to visit with punishment.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments so filed by the Department in this behalf and has submitted that the Enquiry Officer while submitting his inquiry report, did hold the appellant guilty of the negligence and recommended a note of warning against him, therefore, it cannot be said that he was fully exonerated by the said Enquiry Officer.

7. We have given our anxious thought so advanced by the parties and have no hesitation to hold that the Enquiry Officer did exonerate the appellant of the main charge and only recommended that he should be warned to be careful in future. It will be useful to reproduce the verdict so given by him which is as under :‑ .

"In the light of above findings, it was the responsibility of the contractor to provide wooden plug after close of daily work and to remove the same before starting the work on the next day. He is fully responsible for this mishap and losses and also Mr. Siddique Ahmad, Sub‑Engineer being the incharge of work should have been more vigilant to his duties. Since this work has been executed in the city where the S. D. O. incharge was also stationed, so he also did not pass on any instruction to Sub‑Engineer in this respect and could not have a close watch on the work. In my opinion, the Sub‑Engineer is not liable to any major and minor penalty under E & D Rules, 1975. As such he may be exonerated of the charges and re‑instated after issuing simple warning."

We have in juxtaposition perused the order of the competent authority and find that while imposing minor penalty of stoppage of one increment due on 1st December, 1982 without future effect as well as penalty of Censure, the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Faisalabad, has failed to give any reason in order to justify the same when Mr. Abdul Majid Javed Enquiry Officer, had held otherwise. It was incumbent upon the authority to at least give some logic for disagreeing with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer but it seems that the order made by him, which is not a speaking order, is absolutely silent on this subject.

8. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer was more convincing than the impugned order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle Faisalabad, and agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, we proceed to set aside the minor penalty of stoppage of on increment without future effect and substitute the same with a note of warning as recommended by the Enquiry Officer.

9. In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted to the extent indicated in para. 8 above. However, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E. 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.