Find a Lawyer

Case No. 560/71 of 1982, decided on 3rd November, 1983.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Appellant charged for absence from Headquarter‑‑Enquiry Officer after considering prosecution and defence evidence concluding that appellant was residing away from Headquarter a permanently‑‑Penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, in circumstances, held, neither unjustified nor harsh and appeal against same dismissed.

M.S. Siddiqi for Appellants.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Sh. Nazir Ahmad, Project Manager, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through its Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore and the Director‑General, Local Government and Rural Development, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this he has prayed that minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted by Mr. Tanwir Ahmad, Director‑General Local Government and Rural Development Department on various accounts. An enquiry was held into such charges by Capt. (Retd.) Ali Abbas, Assistant Director, L.G.& R.D., Attock. The Enquiry Officer made elaborate inquiry into the charges and found that Charge No.1 regarding his absence from duty was not proved in the light of the statement of the Assistant Commis sioner, Murree. With regard to Charge No. 2 it was found by the Enquiry Officer, there was sufficient evidence on the record to show that he was absent from his headquarter as instead of residing in Murree he was residing at Rawalpindi. It was also found that he was leaving his headquarters without permission and has shown lack of interest in discharging Government duty. Charge No.2 was held to have been proved. However, Charge No. 3 .was ignored by the Enquiry Officer and similarly Charge No. 4 was declared unproved. Charge No.5, which also relates to the absence of the appellant from duty it was found by the Enquiry Officer, that the same stood proved in the light of the statement of the Assistant Commissioner, Murree. Charge No.6 was only relating to one day absence from duty without permission and that too according to the Enquiry Officer, was fully proved against him. Similarly Charge No.7, relating to his absence from the headquarter stood proved against him. He filed representation against the said imposition of the minor penalty but the same has been rejected. 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 Charges Nos. 2, 5 and 6 have been declared as proved by the Enquiry Officer, without any justification, particularly in the face of the fact that he did not consider the defence evidence which was produced before him regarding the said allegation. He has drawn our attention to the fact that the Chairman, Union Council although appeared before the Enquiry Officer but did not make any reference to his statement as it was positively in favour of the appellant.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that in fact there were seven charges which were enquired into by the Enquiry Officer and he after applying his mind, has given an elaborate inquiry report of independent nature. Wherever he found that the charges were not fully proved, he has exonerated the appellant but wherever he was convinced that there was ample evidence on the record to connect him with the charge so levelled against him, he has given his verdict against him. According to the learned District Attorney such like inquiry cannot be called a biased inquiry or perfunctory in nature. He has prayed that the minor punishment so visited upon the appellant be maintained.

7. I have given my anxious thought so advanced by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length and after carefully going through the inquiry report of Capt. (Retd.) Ali Abbas, Assistant Director, L.C. & R.D. Attock, I cannot. in any manner, declare it perfunctory in nature or an inquiry showing any bias against the appellant. The crux of the entire case against the appellant revolves on two points viz (1) absence without leave for 23‑8‑1980, and (2) he was living at Rawalpindi instead of living at the Headquarter Markaz Kotli Sattian. In this connection the Enquiry Officer examined a number of witnesses for and against the appellant and in the light of the statements of the Assistant Commissioner, Murree, Mr. Muhammad Guizar, Project Assistant, Mr. Abdul Latif Girdawar and Malik Muhammad Ramzan, Office Superintendent, Director L.G. & R.D s. Office, he found that the evidence produced on behalf of the appellant was not convincing. I have also satisfied myself that Enquiry Officer did take into consideration the defence evidence so produced by the appellant while looking into the prosecution evidence. At page 2 of the inquiry report, now placed on the record, I find that the Enquiry Officer fully discussed the statement of Muhammad Gulzar, Project Manager, Kotli Sattian a prosecution witness and after considering the same he came to the conclusion that the appellant was not residing at his headquarter but in fact was living at Rawalpindi. It has been observed that when the statement of the Project Assistant was recorded, the appellant put a question to him as to whether the said witness had told Mr. Abdul Latif Girdawar, Halqa Murree that appellant was residing at Murree but the witness stated that he did not tell the Girdawar. The Enquiry Officer has clearly analysed this aspect of the case and has observed that this sort of negative admission would in no way confirm the presence of the appellant at his Headquarter. He has denied that the witness ever stated positively that the appellant was living at the Headquarter at Kotli Sattian. Similarly he has also discussed the statement of Muhammad Rafi, clerk, who appeared on behalf of the appellant and has observed that his earlier statement regarding residence of the appellant at Kotli Sattian, stood washed away by the second reply of the same witness in which he stated that he did sometime come to the Headquarter for official business. The Enquiry Officer has put the defence evidence in juxtaposition to the prosecution evidence and has found more weight in the prosecution evidence which consisted of senior officer like A.C., Murree, Muhammad Gulzar, Project Assistant, Mr. Abdul Latif Girdawar and Malik Muhammad Ramzan. It also cannot be denied that while discussing the defence evidence the Enquiry Officer has failed to refer to the statement of Chairman, Union Council, therefore, I have myself looked into the same and find that it in no manner favours the accused in a manner which could result in his complete exoneration. In these circumstances, I am fully satisfied that the appellant did absent himself for one day and also failed to provide his residential address, which he was under obligation to do so as to enable his superiors to contact him whenever they so desired. It is also not proved from the evidence on the record that he was living in Rawalpindi permanently and only came to his Headquarter whenever he was required for some meeting or official work.

8. In view of these established facts on the record against the appellant, the minor penalty so visited by forfeiting his one annual B increment without cumulative effect, can neither be unjustified nor harsh. The result is I do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. However, 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.