Find a Lawyer

Case No. 673/1037 of 1985, decided on 11th November, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Dismissal for misconduct Proceedings irregular‑‑Tribunal setting aside impugned order and remanding case, to competent authority for proceeding in accordance with rules and directing re‑instatement of appellant to bestow upon him status of civil servant‑‑Dismissal order withdrawn by Authorised Officer in compliance with judgment of Tribunal‑‑Authorised Officer again sending case to Authority after supplying copies of Enquiry Report and his own detailed recommendation to accused‑‑Accused again dismissed by Authority after personal hearing opportunity and taking into consideration all pros and cons of case‑‑Tribunal, in circumstances, refusing to interfere and plea that earlier judgment was not implemented repelled.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Muhammad Sadiq Hully, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑‑Atta Muhammad, Ex‑Forest Guard, Division Forest Office, Range Management Division, Chakwal has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein, he has impleaded the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 20‑2‑1984 of respondent No. 3 be set aside and he re‑instated in service with full back benefits at least from 13‑1‑1983 when the earlier judgment of this Tribunal was delivered. As the' respondent No. 3 has wilfully flouted the judgment of this Tribunal, he should be burdoned with the exemplary costs.

3. Brief facts of this case are that an appeal of the appellant came before the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case No. 434/1352 of 1981. A judgment was delivered in that case by this Tribunal, dated 13‑1‑1983, the operative para. 5 of which is reproduced below:‑

"5. Keeping the above circumstances in view, I hold that the impugned order, dated 20‑5‑1980 of removal of the appellant from service issued by the respondent No. 2, has been passed by an incompetent authority and is without jurisdiction and is, thus, unlawful. Consequently the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is also not a valid order and is void. These impugned orders are set aside and case is remanded to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore (Authority) who is directed to proceed against the appellant in accordance with the law propounded in Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.‑W. F. P. P L D 1981 S C 176. It is directed that the appellant be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant, to enable the departmental authorities to proceed against him. The period from the date of his removal from service to that of re‑instatement in service will be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay."

On receipt of the above judgment by the respondents, the order of the dismissal of the appellant was withdrawn by the Conservator of Forests Multan Circle, Multan (Authorised Officer) vide order, dated 20‑4‑1983. Furthermore, the Authorised Officer made his detailed recommendations to the authority i.e. the Chief Conservator of Forests, vide his letter, dated 26‑6‑1983. The authority i.e. Chief Conservator of Forests, Lahore issued a show‑cause notice of personal hearing as per requirement of the Punjab Civil servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, to the appellant vide letter, dated 23‑8‑1983, wherein a copy of the recommendations submitted by the Authorised Officer were also supplied to the appellant. This letter was sent through the Conservator of Forests Range Management Circle, Lahore for delivery to the appellant but this letter was returned to the Chief Conservator of Forests as the Office of the Conservator of Forests, Range Management Circle, Lahore did not know the address of the appellant. Thus, the show‑cause notice was sent to the appellant at his home address by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Lahore vide his letter, dated 28‑8‑1983 and the appellant was directed to appear before him for personal hearing in his office on 3‑9‑1983. Another notice was issued to the appellant on 31‑8‑1983 for changing the date of personal hearing for 7‑9‑1983 instead of 3‑9‑1983. In the meanwhile the appellant vide his letter, dated 3‑9‑1983, had submitted that he had received the notice on 1‑9‑1983 and would not be in a position to appear for personal hearing, due to rainy season, short time etc. He asked for another date or if this was not possible, then a decision in his case be given and copy of the same be supplied to him. He also made some other submissions in the letter referred to above. However, different dates were changed for personal hearing from time to time and the appellant was heard in person on 8‑9‑1983 and 12‑11‑1983 by the respondent No.3. After affording an opportunity of personal hearing and going through the pros and cons of the case of the appellant, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order, dated 20‑2‑1984, of Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore, a copy of which was supplied to the appellant, vide letter, dated 8‑4‑1984 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Range Management Division, Chakwal. The appellant submitted a departmental appeal to the Secretary to Government of Punjab Forestry and Wildlife Department on 26‑4‑1984 and after expiry of 90 days, the appellant has filed this appeal to this Tribunal within next 30 days. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Malik Muhammad Sadiq Hully, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the proper action has not been taken by the respondents in finalization of the case of the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Even the judgment, dated 13‑1‑1983 of this Tribunal given earlier in case of the appellant has not been followed and implemented by the respondents fully. The appellant has not been re‑instated in service as directed by the Tribunal and also other formalities as required and directed by the Tribunal have not been completed and followed strictly in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that enquiry report upon which the reliance has been placed in the impugned order has not been given due regard although the report also exonerated the appellant from the charges. Copy of this report of Mr. Muhammad Latif Khalji, Senior Range Officer, was not provided to the appellant. Neither the appellant was associated with this enquiry, hence, the appellant has been condemned without proving his guilt and so‑called misconduct. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been again dismissed from service by the Authority in contravention of the judgment of this Tribunal and also failing to follow the proper procedure as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. He has prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are unfounded and without any reasoning. The judgment already given by the Tribunal in the case of the appellant, dated 13‑1‑1983, has been fully implemented. On receipt of the judgment of the Tribunal, the Authorised Officer, withdraw the order of the appellant removing him from service vide his office order, dated 20‑4‑1983 and the appellant was restored his status of the civil servant. As far as other proceedings against the appellant are concerned they have been carried strictly in accordance with the law and in compliance with the judgment of this Tribunal referred to above. On receipt of, the judgment from this Tribunal, Conservator of Forests, Multan, the Authorised Officer, withdrew his earlier order, dated 20‑5‑1980 vide his fresh order, dated 20‑4‑1983. After that the Authorised Officer considered the case of the appellant in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and made his recommendations to the Authority vide his letter, dated 26‑6‑1983. On this the appellant was served with a notice for personal hearing as required under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 wherein a copy of the detailed recommendations made by the Authorised Officer were also provided to the appellant. The appellant was duly heard in person by the competent authority, i.e. Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore. After consideration of the pros and cons of his case he was dismissed from service. Thus, the appellant has been proceeded correctly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. He was provided due opportunities to defend himself by providing the copy of detailed recommendations made by the Authorised Officer and he was duly heard in person before imposing the penalty. The recommendations of the Authorised Officer, also, make it clear that the appellant was provided the enquiry reports of Ch. Abdul Ghani, Head of Inspection Team and Mr. Muhammad Latif Khilji, Senior Range officer to defend himself.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case very carefully. We find that the judgment already, given in the case of the appellant has been fully implemented. On receipt of the above judgment by the respondent, the Authorised Officer withdrew his earlier order of the appellant of removing him from service vide his order, dated 20‑4‑1983 and the appellant was restored to the status of a civil servant. Thus, the contention of the appellant's counsel that the appellant was not re‑instated in service is not correct and is not in accordance with the facts. Furthermore, on withdrawal of his previous order, dated 20‑5‑1980, the then Conservator of Forests, Multan (Authorised Officer) made his recommendations to the Authority for proceedings further in the case of the appellant as per requirement of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. A copy of detailed recommendations made in the case of the appellant, by the Authorised Officer to the Authority, was supplied to the appellant by the authority for defending himself before he was heard in person. The appellant was heard in person and after providing him an opportunity, of personal hearing the appellant was found guilty of misconduct. The report of the Authorised Officer makes it clear that the appellant was provided an inspection report of Ch. Abdul Ghani and report of Mr. Muhammad Latif Khilji, Senior Range Officer, to defend himself. Hence there is no truth in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not provided him a copy of the enquiry report of Mr. Muhammad Latif Khilji. The extract from the report of the Authorised officer submitted to the authority is reproduced below:‑

"His stand that the Inspection Team headed by Ch. Abdul Ghani did not visit Chingas Beat has been fully repudiated by the latter Mr. Ghani has contended that in his team found large number of cattle grazing illicity in Puran and Chingas Beat and, although the cattle found grazing illicity were not counted separately for the two Beats, it was wrong to presume that no illicity grazing was going on in Chingas Beat. Ch. Abdul Ghani has also rebutted other contention of the accused contained in his explanation, dated 17‑6‑1979 available at page 85.

I do not agree to most of the contentions held by the accused Forest Guard Atta Muhammad. Furthermore, he has failed completely to offer any clarification in regard to the report made by Mr. Khilji, Senior Forest Ranger. The accused has failed to indicate that the damage noticed by Mr. Khilji was covered fully with the damage reports and to also account for the grazing animals such as mules and camels that stand disallowed to graze. As incharge of the Government Forest it was his primary duty to have taken effective steps against forest offender and stopped damage there. His contention that complainant Muhammad Nawaz lodged the complaint out of his personal grudge does not carry much weight as a complaint is only to be judged on merit and the fact that it has been lodged by a friend or foe is meaningless.

As is apparent from his reports Mr. Khilji visited compartments 8 to 12 of Chingas Beat, Rasul Block on 14‑4‑1978 and found droppings of goats and sheep everywhere. He found many camps of Bakarwals in the adjacent villages including Chingas. He also found goats and sheep grazing in compartments 8 to 12 R.F. comprising Chingas Beat. The damage seen by him was less than those covered by the Damage Reports issued by accused. It is, therefore, clear that even if the stand of the accused that the report of the Inspection Team was not valid, he was not associated with such inspection and the team did not go to his Beat is accepted, the fact remains that the accused failed completely to clear his position regarding the damage seen by the Senior Forest Ranger in the company of Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Forest Ranger on 14‑4‑1978. Also the large scale damage in his Beat is a sufficient proof towards his involvement and connivance. He, therefore, deserve maximum penalty under para. 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It is, therefore, recommended that he should be dismissed and debarred from service.'

8. Keeping the above detailed facts of the case in view, we have satisfied ourselves that no injustice has been done with the appellant and he has been dealt correctly in accordance with the law equity. Due opportunities were afforded to the appellant to defend himself by supplying the desired documents inquiry reports and affording opportunities of personal hearing. Thus, the impugned order, dated 20‑2‑1984 of respondent No. 3 is a valid and lawful order no exception can be taken against the same.

9. The result of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There is 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.