Find a Lawyer

Case No. 471/451 of 1983, decided on 23rd May, 1984.

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Appellant a Naib‑Qasid (Peon) in office of Union Council charged for tampering with record and issuance of wrong birth certificate‑‑Evidence in departmental enquiry indicating that accused performing duties not connected with issuance of such certificates and proper official (Secretary of Union Council) himself appearing as witness and deposing that certificate was issued by him and accused was not concerned with the matter‑‑Service Tribunal coming to conclusion that impugned dismissal order was based on misreading of evidence‑‑Tribunal, in circumstances, accepting appeal and setting aside impugned dismissal order directing re‑instatement of appellant with full back benefits.

Anwar Ali for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑ Faqir Ullah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1.974, in which he has impleaded the Director, Local Government and Rural Development, D. G. Khan, Assistant Director, Local Government, Muzaffargarh and Project Manager, R.D. Markaz, Shah Jamal, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 13‑6‑1983, by which he has been dismissed from service, be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted by the Authorised Officer, Project Manager, R.D. Markaz, Basira on the allegation that Allah Ditta Shah caste Syed resident of Mauza Sanwai Syed Union Council Sharif Chajjra, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, complained that the appellant issued a birth certificate of Lal Shah son of Sultan Shah to help him getting bailed out from a murder case and got some money as bribe in lieu thereof. He further alleged that the appellant dropped water on the entry of Lal Shah in the Birth and Death Register to conceal the truth and in this way by tampering with the record, had helped to Lal Shah. The appellant denied both the charges but the Authorised Officer found the said charges proved and recommended action against the appellant. On the receipt of the report from the Authorised Officer, a show‑cause notice was issued for imposition of major penalty. The appellant was given personal hearing and he was ultimately dismissed from service. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant being a small and low paid official had nothing to do with the issuing of birth certificate which in fact was issued by the Secretary, Union Council Sharif Chajjra, himself after verification of the same from the relevant document. Similarly learned counsel for the appellant has denied the charge of dropping water on the entries of Birth and Death Registrar and has submitted that there was nothing on the record to prove the same. According to the learned counsel, the appellant started his service from 1‑10‑1963, as Naib‑Qasid and his duty was to keep the office clean and to serve/deliver the orders of Union Council whenever so issued by it. It was further claimed that he has 20 years service with unblemished record of service and had nothing to do with any important work and thus he has been made scapegoat for the offence if any of the Secretary, Union Council. In this respect he has produced C/I, before this Tribunal, which is a copy of application made by Sultan Shah for birth certificate of Lal Shah his son, to prove that if there was any responsibility, it was that of the Secretary, Union Council and not the appellant. He has further relied on the statement of said Haji Muhammad, Secretary, Union Council, before the Enquiry Officer who has exonerated the appellant.

6. On the other hand learned D.A. has supported the comments of the department and has submitted that in fact the villain of the (sic) appellant himself and no leniency could be shown to him. He has prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

7. We have carefully attended to the arguments made by parties and find that Haji Muhammad, Secretary, Union Council, Sharif Chajjara. appeared before the Enquiry Officer and made a statement on oath anti accepted that it was he who issued the Birth Certificate to Sultan Shah at his request. In a cross‑examination he has stated that it was he who had prepared the copy of certificate and had issued it accordingly. He has further denied any participation of the appellant in the said transaction. This statement is further supplemented by the Exh. C/1 which is a duly attested document which reveals the actual situation. From this document, we find that Sultan Shah made an application addressed to the Chairman, Union Council, Sharif Chajjara, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, who directed the Secretary, Union council to, issue the said certificate. It was also fully established from this document that the Secretary, Union Council, himself received the copying fee as well as issued copy of the birth certificate to Sultan Shah. In view of these two crucial documents which go to the very root of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant had nothing to do with the said transaction and the impugned order is based on misreading of evidence. The respondents have failed to prove from any document or oral evidence at it was the duty of the appellant to issue a birth certificate, therefore, he was fully connected with the said transaction. The plea of the appellant that he was just a humble official who had to keep the office clean and to perform the duty of process‑server, has been fully established during the course of arguments as well as from the record of this case. We have no hesitation to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant when it was found that some Hanky Panky has been made in the issuance of birth certificate, the appellant has been made scapegoat of the affair in order to let of the Secretary, Union Council who was an aged respectable of the locality.

8. In view of the documents so produced and arguments so advanced before us by the parties, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits. There will be no order as to costs.

M. I. 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.