Find a Lawyer

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

---Art. 212(3)‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 6(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question arising out of petition and impugned judgment of Service Tribunal which were considered to be of great public importance.

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

‑‑ R. 6(3)‑Removal from service‑No indication found in record to show that secret reports against civil servant were shown or factual contents thereof were disclosed to him ‑ Vagueness of charges and of statement of allegations, omission to make a fair and full disclosure of facts forming basis of allegations, imper fections and ipsi dexit of secret probes and discreet inquiries, absence of connecting link between allegations and findings found One of charges a very concrete and tangible one, capable of objective details involving no names, vilification or scandals was that civil servant had assumed a style of living beyond his ostensible means which found a laconic mention in charge‑sheet but none in state ment of allegations ‑Privileged reports which alone formed basis of action against civil servant contained no mention of allega tions levelled except for that "he owned about two squares of agricultural land and his financial position was not so sound Such reports and material, held, could not prove charges against accused civil servant in circumstances.

The Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan P L D 1985 S C 134; Fazal Rahim v. The Superintendent of Police, Mardan and others P L D 1985 S C 290 and Sohrab Khan Kal war v. Secretary to the Government of Sind, Department of Food and others P L D 1980S C 279 ref.

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

----R. 6(3) ‑Procedure of inquiry shorter and somewhat summary in nature ‑Procedure, however, confers no arbitrary or capricious powers on competent officers to draw any conclusion or to reach any destination that they please‑Reports of agencies carrying out secret probes‑Duty of Authorised officers and Authority pointed out.

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

--‑ R. 6(3)‑Where neither the charge nor statement of allegations made a fair disclosure of facts or allegations the appointment of an Inquiry Officer could not be dispensed with‑hither material or evidence against officer facing an inquiry was to be collected and brought on record in his presence or if already brought on record or obtained through an inquiry it had to be shown to him unless some portions of same were for good reasons were not be disclosed-- Where such minimal requirement of law and procedure remained unsatisfied. Service Tribunal held, could justifiably treat matter as a case of violation of law and of principles of natural justice.

Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 25th January, 1986.

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J

.‑Leave to appeal was granted to the Government of Punjab under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine the question arising out of the petition and the impugned judgment which were con sidered to be of great public importance.

The respondent Tassadaq Hussain Bokhari belonging to District Jhang was a lawyer before his appointment as a Magistrate in 1974: While he was posted as City Magistrate, Faisalabad, on the 7th of December, 1982 he received a show‑cause notice calling for his explanation within 10 days in proceedings under sub‑rule (3) of rule‑6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), The charges against which be was required to show cause were expressed in the following terms :‑

"Whereas the undersigned as Authorized Officer in your case, has been directed by the Authority to proceed against you under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on the following charges :‑

(1) That you have a persistent reputation of being corrupt as defined in rule 3 (c) (iii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Dis cipline) Rules, 1975 ;

(2) That you have assumed a style of living beyond your ostensible means as defined in rule 3 (c) (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 ;

(3) That you are indulging blatantly in heavy drinking and womaniz ing. Further details are given in the enclosed statement of allegations."

In the statement of allegations appended to the charge‑sheet the follow ing recital was made (reproduced in full).

"It has come to the notice of Government that Mr. Tassadaq Hussain Bokhari, City Magistrate, Faisalabad is corrupt, financially and morally‑receives illegal gratification and indulges in drinking and womanizing. He has relations with certain ill‑reputed persons, who are notorious for immorality and drinking. In his capacity as City Magistrate, he has to deal with cases of moral turpitude in which women of bad repute are involved. Ha has reportedly developed relations with them. His modus operandi is that he prolongs their cases till such time as they succumb to his nefarious demands.

He visits certain places known for drinking and debauchery.

With ulterior motives he misused his official position to help certain women of easy virtues.

In Court cases he gets illegal gratification through his touts."

The respondent submitted a detailed reply to the show‑cause notice denying the charges. He made a grievance that the charges were vague and did not amount to full disclosure of the allegations against him. He expressed this grievance in the following words :‑

"Regarding the charges levelled against me in the show‑cause notice and the statement of allegations, it is submitted that the same are vague, general and unsubstantiated. Had some specific allegations, made against me, I would have submitted a conclusive defence to meet them. So, I am handicapped in my defence to explain my position in a convincing way."

Regarding 'the allegation that he was living beyond his known means of income, he stated as follows :‑

"As for assuming a style or living beyond my ostensible means, I may submit that I am the sole owner of 50 acres of ancestral land and co‑sharer of 200 acres with my brothers in District Jhang. Our progressive forming and fertile lands are known in the District. Yet unlike my other brothers, I do not possess a car or any other item of luxury. I am leading a simple and modest life in conformity with the requirements of service. Eversince by joining the service my assets have squeezed rather than expanded (the fact can be ascertained from the revenue record of my district). After joining service, I sold some of my lands and did not acquire any additional asset."

The Authorized Officer after examining the reply to the show‑cause notice considered the allegations proved and recommended on 28‑12‑1982 that major penalty of removal from service be imposed on him. The Authority afforded him an opportunity of personal hearing after deciding upon the punishment of removal proposed to be imposed on him. The Chief Secretary noted the following defence put forward by the respondent at the personal hearing :‑

"During his personal hearing on 13th January, 1983, the accused officer made the following points, which are, by and large, identical to the defence taken by him in his explanation/written defence :‑

(a) He was appointed as City Magistrate and Qazi Shariat Court by the District Magistrate, Faisalabad on account of his excellent performance and conduct ;

(b) He performed his duties as City Magistrate/Qazi Shariat Court to the entire satisfaction of his superiors ;

(c) As City Magistrate, he was given assignment, such as removal of encroachmants, sweeps against anti‑social elements and campaign against profiteering and hoarding. In the performance of these duties, he earned the enmity of many influential persons who have filed civil suits and writ petitions against him personally. In support of the contention, he produced certain documents, which are placed at page 124/c to page 140/c.

(d) As Qazi Shariat Court, he came down with a heavy hand upon the culprits as is clear from his high rate of convictions. He did not oblige "sifarishis" including one person recommended by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha. This earned him the odium of certain influential persons including the Officers of the Anti‑Corrup tion Establishment, who began to collect false implicating material against him. In this context he also produced an affidavit from a local Advocate to support his contention (page 120/c).

(e) He had written to the S. P., Faisalabad regarding the alleged rape by certain police functionaries of certain women in police custody. This turned the local police against him (pages 143‑144/cor).

(j) The local Special Branch turned against him since he did not allow free entry to some of their staff in the Cricket Test Match between Australia and Pakistan.

(g) Cases involving Zina are triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Cases of such women, therefore, did not come up before him and the charge that be cultivated illicit relations with such women is false.

(h) High rate of convictions negates the charge, that he accepted illegal gratification from the accused persons in the Court.

(i) He is a Zamindar and has enough income to support the style of living, albeit a modest one, which he has assumed.

(j) The Moulvis of Faisalabad took umbrage on account of the non partisan attitude adopted by him vis‑a‑vis the local Sunnis and Shias as is clear from (pages 145‑146/cor).

(k) He had already earned good confidential reports and had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar recently.

(l) The D. C. and S. M. L. A. had addressed letters of appriciation to him (pages 117/c and 118/c)".

After noting down his defence (as above) the Authority concluded in the following words without any discussing of the material on record :‑

"I, in my capacity as Authority, have carefully considered all the above contentions. Most of the points taken by the accused officer relate to the quality of his judicial and administrative work (as City Magistrate/Qazi Shariat Curt) which alone is not under examination. He has said little or nothing, about the specific allegations against him as contained in the show‑cause notice. I see no reason to disagree with the report of the Directorate of Anti- Corruption Establishment and the Special Branch who have looked into the allegations against the accused officer, independently of each other, and have sent separate independent reports, with iden tical findings, holding him guilty of the charges spelt out in the show‑cause notice,"

and proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service as recom mended by the Authorized Officer.

The respondent filed a departmental appeal and getting no response invoked the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal. Two main grievances were made the ground for challenge to the departmental order of removal. The first was that the shorter procedure, the summary pro cedure of inquiry as prescribed in sub‑rule (3) of rule 6 of the Rules was illegally and unjustifiably adopted for inquiring into the factual allegations made against him. The second was that throughout the entire proceed ings culminating in his removal at no stage was there a fair and full disclosure of the specific allegations and the grounds on which they were based. It was also asserted that while dealing with this case the very sensitive nature of his appointment and the duties entrusted to him at the relevant time were not kept in view nor the facts that officers immediately superior to him and charged with the duty and responsibility of overseeing his functions reported in his favour and he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar just a month before of the impugned action was initiated against him.

The Service Tribunal recorded the following conclusions of fact :‑

"(1) It is apparent from record without any dispute, that he had been removed from service on the basis of secret reports provided to the authority by the Special Branch of Police as well as by the Anti- Corruption Establishment . . . . . We are of the considered opinion that the appellant has been condemned on secret reports of the Anti‑Corruption Establishment and Special Branch Police, which have based their reports without recording any evidence but only by probe at their own end. Without associating the appellant at any stage of these enquiries, submitting at the same time that the appellant was reportedly or allegedly or stated to be corrupt.

(2) The Deputy Commissioner has further observed that all what has (been) happened was due to strict action taken by the appellant at his behest against the encroachers of the city, which involved big people and as well as anti‑social elements. In this way the Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that the appellant bad created a large number of enemies on account of his straightforward attitude against them. The views of the Deputy Commissioner were endorsed by the Commissioner, Faisalabad."

After considering that on this finding it was not necessary to examine the further legal issues, the Service Tribunal proceeded to record the following conclusions on questions of law :‑

(1) We have repeatedly held in our various judgments that in matter of corruption, procedure under rule 6(3) was uncalled for and regular inquiry was must .. We have also no hesitation to hold that on the charge of corruption the appellant was entitled to full‑fledged inquiry and Authorized Officer was not justified to dis pense with the said procedure and also without giving any cogent reasons for the same".

(2) We have no hesitation to hold that the authority has acted both against the principles of natural justice which is enshrined not only in the codified law of this country but emanates from the Holy Qur'an itself."

Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, the learned Additional Advocate‑General, contended that .the Tribunal has not correctly decided the questions of fact and law involved in the proceedings. In the first place, when an adjourn ment at his request was granted by the Chief Secretary on 9‑1‑1983 the two reports ; one of the Anti‑Corruption Establishment and the other of the Special Branch which were made the basis for the action against the respon dent were shown to him and the adjournment was at the request of the officer to enable him to make his further submissions‑in the light of those reports. He draws strength for this submission by referring to the grounds (a) to (I) taken up by the officer and reproduced above which are all or most of them relatable to the contents of the inquiry. According to the learned counsel, the charges, the statement of allegations and the personal hearing afforded to him the fullest opportunity as is envisaged by the rules under which action was taken against him.

As regards the question of law it is stated that it cannot be held that in a case of corruption such an inquiry is illegal or cannot take place. There is no jurisdictional fact necessary for dispensing with an Inquiry Officer and for adopting the alternate procedure provided for in sub‑rule (3), rule 6 of the Rules. According to the learned Additional Advocate- General, the decision of the Service Tribunal on this aspect ignores the law laid down by this Court in The Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman Khan (P L D 1985 S C 134), Fazal Rahim v. The Super intendent of Police, Mardan and others (P L D 1985 S C 290) and Sohrab Khan Kalwar v. Secretary to the Government of Sind, Department of Food and others (P L D 1980 S C 279). The learned Additional Advocate‑General submitted that personal hearing after the charges and statement of allegations had been served, was alt that was required satisfying thereby all the demands of natural justice. The inquiry was in no manner legally deficient or suffered from any infirmity.

We have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned Additional Advocate‑General and find that there is no indication that the secret reports were shown or the factual contents thereof disclosed to the respondent. It is only an inference drawn by the learned Additional Advocate‑General which gets no support from the record. The findings of the Service Tribunal on facts find full support from the record. The, vagueness of the charges and of the statement of allegations, the omission to make a fair and full disclosure of the facts forming the basis of the allegations, the imperfections and ipsi dixit of the secret probes and discreet inquiries, the absence of the connecting link between the allegations and the findings are all there. One of the charges, a very concrete and tangible one, capable of objective details, involving no names, vilification or scandals was that the respondent had "assumed a style of living beyond his ostensible means. It finds a laconic mention in the charge‑sheet but none in the statement of allegations. The two privileged reports which alone form the basis of action against him contain no mention of it except for one sentence to be found in Special Branch Report and it is that "he owns about squares of agricultural land in the said village. However, him financial position is not so sound". Can any fair minded person on this' report and on such material, hold that the reports prove this charge. The procedure of inquiry is shorter, somewhat summary, under sub‑rule (3) on rule 6 of the Rules but this procedure confers no arbitrary or capricious powers on the competent officers to draw any conclusion or to reach any destination that they please. This one charge, the material on it, the, manner in which conclusions were drawn, illustrates how and to what extent, the Authorized Officer and the Authority surrendered their Judg ment and good sense, abdicated their duty and responsibility in favour of two police agencies carrying out secret probes and discreet inquiries in a mater of which these officers and not those agencies were the sole arbiters.

The extent to which these secret reports go is alarming in the extreme. Among other events, a lady officer posted in the district married to Senior Government Officer has been calumnised and the respondents acquaintance with her has been made the basis of action against him but none against her. One of the allegations concerning his handling of Court cases was‑particularized that "he prolongs their cases till such time as they succumb to his nefarious deeds". Not a single case of unjustified or of repeated adjournments was noted anywhere, or by any agency oil authority at any stage of the entire proceedings. While examining such case some awareness should have been exhibited about the sensitive nature of the duties, executive and judicial, entrusted to a Magistrate. The opinion of immediate superiors all the time overseeing his work and performance should have been given some place and weight. For example the Commissioner commented on the allegation and the material "Regarding the lady (name) the allegations are baseless". This has reference to the allegation that "with ulterior motives he misused his official position to help certain women of easy virtue".

As regards the first finding of law, we would agree with the learned Additional Advocate‑General that in the abstract not every charge of corruption must necessarily be inquired into by an elaborate inquiry after, appointing an Inquiry Officer. We would also agree with him that no juris dictional requirements are to be satisfied and spelt out or reduced to writing before resorting to the procedure prescribed under sub‑rule (3) of rule 6. All the same, the observations of the Tribunal have a reference to the facts of the case. We treat it as relatable to a case where neither the charge nor the statement of allegations makes a fair disclosure of facts or allega tions the appointment of an Inquiry Officer cannot be dispensed with. Either the material or evidence against an officer facing an inquiry is to be collected and brought on record in his presence or if already brought record or obtained through an inquiry it has to be shown to him unless some portions of it are for good reasons not to be disclosed. As this minimal requirement of law and procedure remained unsatisfied, the Service Tribunal could justifiably treat it as a case of violation of law and of principles of natural justice.

We find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.

M. B. A. 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.