Find a Lawyer

Case No. 345/384 of 1983, decided on 11th March, 1984.

(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑

‑‑ R. 6‑Enquiry report‑Civil servant beard in person/examined by Enquiry Officer and prosecution witnesses examined by him and written application tendered by civil servant also considered by Enquiry Officer‑Enquiry Officer, considered all pros and cons of case in his findings and proved charges against civil servant‑Civil servant, held, given full opportunity to defend himself‑Enquiry re port, held further, a complete document and legally valid.

''‑‑‑ R. 6(4)‑Minor penalty, imposing of‑Opportunity of personal hearing‑No personal hearing to an accused Civil servant, awarded minor penalty, held, necessary.

Kh. Tarig Masood for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER)

. ‑Aziz‑ur‑Rehman, Temporary Junior Clerk, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director Works, Office of the Chief Engineer, Punjab Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order dated 10th April, 1983 be declared as illegal, unjustified and without any lawful authority.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Aziz‑ur‑Rehman, temporary Junior Clerk, Office of the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Lahore was served with a charge‑sheet alongwith the statement of allegations on 2nd January, 1983, under the Punjab (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. A regular enquiry was conducted against him on the charges as contained in the charge‑sheet and statement of allegations. The Enquiry Officer submitted him report to the Authorised Officer i.e. Administrative Officer, Office of the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore. Charges Nos. 1 and 2 were partially proved while the charges Nos. 3 and 4 were fully proved against the appellant as per enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the enquiry report, the appellant was given an opportunity of show‑cause notice by the Authorised Officer on 30th March, 1983. A reply was submitted by the appellant which was considered by the Authorised Officer. Considering the pros and cons of the case the appellant was imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of incre ment for two years with cumulative effect falling on 1st December, 1983 and 1st December, 1984 by the Authorised Officer, vide his order, dated 10th April, 1983. The appellant made a representation appeal to the Director Works, Office of the Chief Engineer, Punjab, Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore which was dismissed vide his order, dated 21st June, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. We have beard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished on the basis of the enquiry report which is not a valid enquiry report, as no evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, although the appellant had mentioned the names of witnesses in his complaint, dated 2nd January, 1983. No. prosecution witness was examined in appellant's presence and he was not afforded an opportunity to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter and the punishment awarded to the appellant is unlawful and not based on the valid grounds. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant, as well as no person can be condemned unheard, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this score alone.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the enquiry report of Mr. Inayat Ullah Hashmi, Enquiry Officer. It has been submitted by him that this enquiry report is a complete document and no exception can be taken against the enquiry report. Para. 2 of the enquiry report clearly mentions that the appellant was examined by the Enquiry Officer, though not requested by the appellant, in order to deliver justice by the Enquiry Officer. The prosecution witnesses were also examined by the Enquiry Officer. The written explanation tendered by the appellant, was also very carefully considered by the Enquiry Officer arriving at the decision. As the charges were proved against the appellant and he was found guilty of misconduct, hence the punishment awarded to the appellant is perfectly valid and in order.

6. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant, for not affording the opportunity of personal hearing by the Authorised Officer, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appellant was awarded a minor punishment by the Authorised Officer and hence there was no necessity of personal hearing as per rule 6(4) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney has submitted that the impugned orders are correct, valid and lawful orders and no exception can be taken against these.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. We have perused the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer i.e., Mr. Inayat Ullah Hashmi, dated 26th March, 1983. The enquiry report shows that the appellant was heard in person/examined by the Enquiry Officer and also the prosecution witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer. The written application tendered by the appellant was also considered by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, the Enquiry Officer had considered all the pros and cons of this case, after examining the parties ; and in his findings, he has proved the charges Nos. 1 and 2 (partially) and charges Nos. 3 and 5 (fully) against the appellant. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the enquiry report is a complete document ; wherein the appellant was given an opportunity to defend himself and thus the objections raised by the appellant's counsel regarding the enquiry report are uncalled for and are not worth consideration. As far as the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant, regarding, opportunity of personal hearing, we agree with the learned District Attorney that as per rule 6(4) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the Authorised Officer was a not required to give the opportunity of personal bearing to the appellant, as minor punishment was imposed by him. Thus, we hold that the impugned orders are valid and lawful orders and no exception can be taken against the same.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There are 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.