Find a Lawyer

Case No.244/177 of 1985, decided on 30th October, 1985.

‑‑‑Rr.7‑A & 8‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Patwari charged for serious malpractices‑‑Assistant Commissioner exercising powers of Authorised Officer as well as Authority‑‑Copy of enquiry report not supplied to accused and neither final show‑cause notice served for personal hearing given‑‑Accused (appellant), in circumstances, held, prejudiced and defects rendering impugned dismissal order as unlace‑‑Service Tribunal accepting appeal, setting aside impugned order in order to bestow upon appellant status of a civil servant and remanding case to Authority for proceeding afresh in accordance with requirement of rules from stage where lacuna occurred.

Ch. Nabi Ahmad Cheema for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Muhammad Nawaz ex‑Patwari has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan Division, D.G. Khan and the Assistant Commissioner, Karor Lal Eison, District Layyah as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 31‑12‑1984 and 10‑7‑1984 passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, respectively be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while serving as a Patwari at Mauza Fatehpur was found to have indulged in serious malpractices for which he was charge‑sheeted. The appellant was also suspended from service w.e.f. 9‑4‑1984. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. According to the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer charges Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 had not been fully proved. Charge No.5 was not proved by the evidence of the witnesses but report in the daily diary did corroborate the charge. This report was maintained by the appellant himself. Thus, this charge was proved by the record. Enquiry Officer proposed minor penalty of stoppage of one year increment. However, the Assistant Commissioner, Karor did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held the appellant guilty of charges Nos. 1,3 to 5 and the services of the appellant were terminated, vide his order, dated 10‑7‑1984. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, D.G. Khan who upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner, vide his order, dated 31‑12‑1984 with certain observations. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Ch. Nabi Ahmad Cheema, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondent on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order, dated 10‑7‑1984 of the Assistant Commissioner, Karor Lal Eison through which the services of the appellant have been terminated is a defective and unlawful order. The Assistant Commissioner, has himself acted as an authorised officer as well as an Authority. He did not supply a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant to defend himself. The appellant was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing as per Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Thus, the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter and has been condemned unheard. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 has been passed behind the back of the appellant and without giving him any notice or right of hearing before passing the same. The order therefore, is against the principles of natural justice and without observing the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 and is liable to be set aside being unlawful.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney could not successfully rebut the above arguments J the learned counsel for the appellant and has conceded, after going through the relevant record produced by the representative of the respondent No. 2 that the appellant has not been supplied a copy of the enquiry report and was also not heard in person by the respondent No.2 before passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order of the respondent No.2 is not a valid order.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record of this case carefully. We find that the correct procedure as laid down in Rules 7‑A and 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, has not been followed by the Authorised Officer/ Authority. The appellant was not supplied a copy of the enquiry report to defend himself. Also the appellant was not served with a show‑cause notice for personal hearing and he was not heard in person. Thus, he has been prejudiced in the matter. The above defects have rendered the impugned order, of respondent No.2 as an unlawful order. These defects were also observed by the learned Commissioner (respondent No.l) and he should have struck down the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The last para of the impugned order, dated 31‑12‑1984 of the Commissioner, D.G. Khan is reproduced below:‑

"I, however cannot help observing a certain deficiency in the drafting of the order by the learned A.C./Collector. Nowhere in the said order he has mentioned under what law he was proceeding. Although it is well understood that the orders of this nature are made under powers conferred by the E & D Rules, 1975 and the procedure laid down thereunder yet in all judicial orders a specific mention of the provision of the relevant law or statute must always be given. Similarly towards the end of the order of the Assistant Commissioner has written the following sentence 'thus the accused Patwari has indulged and misconduct inefficiency and ignorance of law and procedure'. What the Assistant Commissioner probably meant was indulged in but a careless error crept in which rendered the whole sentence almost meaningless. Typographical mistake do not vitiate a judicial order but they undermine the quality of a judgment. Similarly lumping together ignorance of law and procedure alongwith misconduct and inefficiency only indicates that the learned Assistant Commissioner/ Collector never bothered to read E a D Rules. Ignorance of law and procedure incidental is not one of the grounds for which a person might be proceeded against under E & D Rules. Hence these words should not have been mentioned where they were. The language of a judicial order must be precise, to the point and scrupulously avoid the use of unnecessary adjective or expressions merely to add eloquence and lay stress."

8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the authority to proceed in accordance with the Punjab civil servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, by the Authorised Officer/ Authority from where the lacuna has occurred as detailed in para.7 of this judgment. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon the status of a Civil Servant. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the Authorised Officer/ Authority after proceeding as mentioned above.

There is no order as to costs.

A. E.

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.