Find a Lawyer

Case No. 336/1859 of 1982, decided on 12th September, 1983.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Appellant Executive Engineer awarded minor penalty of stoppage of one increment on charge of inefficiency in failure to pay adequate and timely attention to maintenance of road‑‑Evidence of defence and prosecution examined by Tribunal‑‑Tribunal reaching conclusion that appellant not absolved of alleged charge in detailed enquiry report‑‑Appeal against penalty order, in circumstances, held without merit and dismissed.

Nisar Qutab for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun District Attorney for Respondent.

‑‑Muhammad Munir Chughtai, Executive Engineer Highway Division, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 4‑3‑1982, by which he was awarded minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. He has impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Depart ment, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside as of no consequence.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Secretary, Communication and Works Department served a charge‑sheet upon the appellant alongwith statement of allegations, to which the appellant submitted his detailed reply. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry against the appellant alongwith Sardar Nasiruddin, S. E. Nawazish Ali S.D.O. and Muhammad Ijaz, Sub‑Engineer. The Enquiry Officer after recording prosecution as well as defence evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of inefficiency on account of his failure in paying adequate and timely attention to the maintenance of Begum Kot, Sheikhupura Road particularly its old carriage‑way during the first week of September, 1980. The competent authority imposed minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect against the appellant. He filed review petition before the appellate authority, which also stood rejected vide order, dated 26 5‑1982. 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 record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. The main and the only charge against the appellant is that he failed to pay adequate and timely attention to the maintenance of Begum Kot, Sheikhupura Road particularly in its old carriageway during the first week of September, 1980. The Enquiry Officer recorded evidence of Ch. Abdus Salam, Chief Engineer, Punjab Buildings Department, Lahore P.W.1 and also examined documentary evidence consisting of (i) B & R Department, Code regarding duties of S. E., E. E., S. D.O. and Overseer, (ii) Rainfall data for Lahore, Sheikhupura, Ferozewala and Nankana Sahib, (iii) D.O. letter, dated 3‑9‑1980 from Secretary C&W to S.E. Highway. Lahore Circle. (iv) Inspection Reports, dated 11‑10‑1979 and 14‑7‑1980 of C.E. Highways, (v) Note giving the latest position of the estimates dated 9/80 and 10/80 etc., (vi) Note, dated 10‑9‑1980 of Chief Engineer Highways, (vii) Letter, dated 15‑11‑1980 of C.E. Highways, and (viii) Letter, dated 26‑11‑1980 of Secretary C&W. He also recorded evidence of Messrs S.M. Ashraf S.E. (D.W.1), Nisar Ahmad Khan, Director Road Research and Material Testing Institute (D.W.2), Muhammad Yusaf Chaudhry (D.W.3), Mubarik Ahmad Bedar XEN (D.W 4), Zaheer Ahmad Chatha Municipal Councillor (D.W.5) and Muhammad Ali Truck Driver (D.W.6). The defence plea put forward by the appellant was fully examined by him in which it was stated that the old carriageway was very low with a lot of causeways the strength of the road pavement had been rendered structurally inadequate for the present day traffic and the formation of pot‑holes and heavy patches was a continuous process requiring round‑the‑clock patchwork which was difficult to be attended during unprecedented rains of July and August, 1980, and water remained stagnated in most of the breaches which badly affected the road‑crust. It was also pleaded on his behalf that damage so caused at the time of Governor's visit was due to un-precedent heavy rainfall. He has also complained that as far as he was concerned, an estimate for Rs. 16,42,000 was prepared to set right the road and was shown to Chief Engineer on 7‑9‑1980 and it was reduced to Rs.4,60,000 as per Chief Engineer's instructions. As the amount was not made available, therefore, no step could be taker to rectify the damage. The main stress laid on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel is that actually prior to the visit of Governor, heavy rainfall was recorded at Ferozewala, Sheikhupura, Nankana Sahib Roads, therefore, the day the Governor visited on 6‑9‑1980 and the inconvenience felt by him and the observation of the Chief Engineer with regard to the damaged condition of the road, was not due to his fault but due to the act of the nature. This substantive plea stands demolished from the rainfall data from 25‑8‑1980 to 7‑9‑1980, which shows that rainfall was recorded at Sheikhupura, Ferozewala and Nankana Sahib on 1‑9‑1980. Thus, the plea that the Governor's visit dated 6‑9‑1980 was preceded by a continuous wet spell is unacceptable. This data of rainfall has been placed on the record in the Inquiry Report,

6. In view of the above discussion of all points raised by prosecution and defence evidence, we are of the considered opinion that it does not absolve the appellant from the charge of inefficiency which has been fully proved against him by the detailed report of the Enquiry Officer.

7. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. 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.