Find a Lawyer

Case No. 166/365 of 1983, decided on 4th March, 1984.

‑‑ S. 4 ‑ Disciplinary action‑ Corruption charge‑ Enquiry held properly with defence opportunity to accused who himself refusing to cross‑examine prosecution witness or to produce defence evi dence‑Findings of enquiry proving charge based upon evidence Accused supplied copy of enquiry report before personal hearing before competent authority‑Penalty of dismissal from service, in circumstances, not exceptionable and Tribunal refusing to interfere in appeal.

M. M. Rahim for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District, Attorney for Respondents.

Muhammad Abbass, ex‑Patwari Halqa 172/7‑R Tehsil Fortabbas, District Bahawalnagar has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and the Assistant Commissioner, Fortabbas as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugn ed order, dated 20th January, 1982 passed 1 by respondent No. 2 and order, dated 5th January, 1983 passed by respondent No. 1 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Muhammad Abbass, ex‑Patwari Halqa 17217‑R was charge‑sheeted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification as follows:‑

The appellant on 6th September, 1981 confessed his guilt in an open Kutchery in the presence of Enayat Ullah Lambardar and others. Mr. Noor Ahmed, Assistant Commissioner, Fortabbas was appointed Enquiry Officer. He recorded the statements of 5 witnesses who had staunchly supported the charges. The appellant failed to adduce anything favour able for his defence in the cross‑examination. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. The appellant also requested the Enquiry Officer to summon the prosecution witnesses for cross‑examination but subse quently he got recorded his statement that he would not cross‑examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer, in his enquiry report held that the charges against the appellant stood proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The appellant was heard in person by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Fortabbas. He considered the pros and cons of the case and came to the conclusion that the charge of corruption stood proved against the appellant and he was guilty of misconduct. Therefore, the appellant was dismissed from service with immediate effect vide Assistant Commissioner/Collector's Fortabbas order, dated 20th January, 1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur which was rejected vide his order dated 5th January, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the enquiry against the appellant has not been conducted in the required manner. He was not given proper chance to cross‑examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer had depended upon the statements of the witnesses which were interested parties and they were themselves complainant in the case. Actually the appellant has been implicated falsely in this case as a result of friction between the parties of Chak No. 172/7‑R falling in the Halqa of the appellant. As the appellant had not been allowed to cross‑question the prosecution witnesses, hence he has been prejudiced in the matter and he has been punished without proving the corruption charge against him. The learned counsel for the appellant has also objected to the impugned order of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur mentioning that the learned Commis sioner has referred to the matter extraneous in his impugned order while deciding the appeal of the appellant, which had no connection with the case of the appellant and was not subject‑matter of his charge‑sheet. Thus, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner is defective and has been based on some of the charges which were not included in the charge‑sheet and the appellant was not given a chance to confront with the same. The appellant's counsel has submitted that the appellant has been punished for no fault of his and the impugned orders be set aside being unlawful and not based on the facts.

5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has relied on the impugned order, dated 20th January, 1982 of Assistant Commis sioner/Col lector, Fortabbas. It has been pointed out by him that a regular enquiry was held in this case as required in a corruption case. The appel lant was afforded all the opportunities to put up his defence or cross -examining the prosecution witnesses, but the appellant had himself recorded his statement that he would not cross‑examine the witnesses. He, just, asked for pardon at the time of his personal hearing before the competent authority. Thus, the appellant has not been prejudiced in the matter. He was afforded all the opportunities to defend himself as required under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, and he has been punished on proving the charge of corruption against him. Hence, no exception can be taken, against the impugned orders which are valid and correct orders.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record, very carefully, submitted by the respon dents. I have gone through the enquiry report of Mr. Noor Ahmad Mirza, M. 1. C., Fortabbas. The enquiry report is comprehensive and a detailed document. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have been well‑covered in this enquiry report. The appellant was given chances to defend himself. He was also allowed to cross‑question the prosecution witnesses but the appellant submitted that he would not cross‑examine them. The Enquiry Officer has concluded as follows :‑

"The witnesses have not been examined by Patwari/counsel, it means their evidence has been accepted. The Patwari has also not produced any person in his defence. It means that he has no defence to rebut the allegations.

It has also been mentioned in the enquiry report by this Enquiry Officer :‑

I have heard Mr. Akhtar Ali Tatla, Advocate for the Patwari at length. I have also gone through the evidence and other material on record with extreme care. All the five witnesses are residents of the Halqa of this Patwari. They all are cultivators. None of them has any enmity with the Patwari. All are independent and disinte rested witnesses. They have no motive to falsely implicate their Patwari. The witnesses have corroborated the charge in their applications, affidavits and statements. There is no contradiction, discrepancy or imperfection in their statements.

Thus, the enquiry report reveals that the Enquiry Officer had taken. care of all the points/objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of the arguments of this before me and the enquiry report is a complete document, wherein the charge against the appellant has been fully proved by the Enquiry Officer. The record also shows that the competent authority before passing the impugned order of his dismissal, supplied a copy of the, enquiry report to the appellant, heard him in person. Thus, the appellant was provided the required opportunities to defend himself and he was awarded the punishment, when the charge of corruption was proved against the appellant and he was found guilty of misconduct. Hence no exception can be taken against the impugned orders of dismissal of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Fortabbas. A reference is also made to the impugned order of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur to which an objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that it also contains the extraneous matter which was not a subject‑matter of the charge‑sheet. I have perused the impugned order of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. The Com missioner has made some remarks in para. No. 5 of his impugned order. These are just for reference sake, otherwise he has concluded his impugned order on the facts of the case as given by the Assistant Commissioner and has upheld the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 1. Thus, the impugned order of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur is valid, lawful and the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is not in order.

7. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. E. 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.