Find a Lawyer

Case No. 706/1152 of 1984, decided on 21st May, 1985.

---R. 7, 7-A & 8--Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4- Disciplinary action--Enquiry incomplete conducted in slipshod manner and report based on surmises and conjectures--Authorised Officer taking notice of defective enquiry but instead of taking proper steps to rectify defects making his recommendations for major penalty and Authority passing penalty order of dismissal from service--Service Tribunal, in circumstances, setting aside penalty order remanding case to competent authority for proceeding afresh by holding fresh enquiry and directing re-instatement of appellant to bestow, upon him status of a civil servant.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

--Hanif Ali Ex-Sub-Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Mehrpur (Syedwala Markaz) Tehsil Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals' Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Multan Road, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 31-1-1984 passed by the respondent No.2 and order, dated 12-8-1984 passed by the respondent No.l be set aside. He has also prayed that the appellant be declared to be continuous in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Sub-Inspector, Cooperative Societies Mehrpur (Syedwala Markaz), Tehsil Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura was placed under suspension on account of misconduct vide order, dated 10-2-1983 of respondent No.2. vide order dated 26-4-1983, of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies (Authorised Officer), the appellant was served with a charge sheet and also Ch. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti, Inspector Cooperative Societies (Manawan), Lahore was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by the said Authorised Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, submitted the report of the Authorised Officer who in turn after consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, made recommendations to the authority vide his letter dated 20-10-1983. The Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies Lahore Division, Lahore after consideration of the case of the appellant, dismissed him from service vide his order dated 31-1-1984. The appellant made an appeal to the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies (respondent No.1) who dismissed the same vide his order dated 12-8-1984. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished on the basis of the enquiry report and recommendations of the authorised officer. He has submitted that the perusal of the enquiry report reveals that the enquiry report is in-complete, slip-shod and has been concluded on surmises and conjectures. Even the recommendations of the Authorised Officer are vague and contradictory. He has referred to the para. 3 of the recommendations dated 20-10-1983 (Annexure A/7) of the Authorised Officer, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Lahore wherein the Authorised Officer has mentioned that it is evident from the perusal of the enquiry report that the charge of misconduct is partially proved and the charge of inefficiency is fully proved against the accused. Also it has been mentioned in the same para by the Authorised Officer "most of the charges have material evidence on the record of the Societies which seems have not been consulted by the Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry, otherwise there is sufficient material evidence in support of the charge." It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the recommendations of the Authorised Officer clearly show that he has based his recommendations on the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, which was not complete. As the Authorised Officer was not satisfied with the enquiry, he should have referred back the matter to the enquiry officer to get the enquiry complete. Thus, the appellant has been punished on the basis of incomplete enquiry report and vague recommendations of the Authorised Officer. Hence, the appellant has been punished without proving the charges against him and thus, the punishment awarded to the appellant is arbitrary and unlawful. He has also referred to the impugned order of the respondent No.2, the authority through which the appellant has been punished and has pointed out that the authority has punished the appellant on the charge of embezzlement, which was not fully proved by the Enquiry Officer/ Authorised Officer.

6. However, the learned Deputy District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents in extenso and has submitted that the appellant was punished when the charges of misconduct were duly proved against the appellant and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case carefully. At the time of arguments of this case, the enquiry report was read by the learned Deputy District Attorney before us. After perusing the enquiry report, we are of the considered opinion that the enquiry report is slip-shod, incomplete and has been based on surmises and conjectures. The Authorised Officer, though, took notice of the defective enquiry while making recommendations to the authority, but did not take proper step to rectify this defect to get the enquiry complete properly. Thus, the proceedings as required under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 had not been conducted against the appellant in a proper manner and these cannot be sustained.

8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with the law, by holding a fresh enquiry so that no injustice is done with the appellant and he is not punished arbitrarily. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant so that he could be proceed as mentioned. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the competent authority after proceeding afresh as mentioned above.

There will be no order as to costs.

1. E.

Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.