Find a Lawyer

Case No. 88/628 of 1986, decided on 31st May, 1986.

‑ ‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑Show‑cause notice procedure qua corruption charge‑‑Regular enquiry not a must for allegation of corruption‑‑Decision depends upon facts of each case‑‑Authorised Officer, held, could take action under R.6(3) for ends of justice‑‑Charges of corruption against Registration Clerk established by documents on record‑‑Authorised Officer, in circumstances, held, was justified in proceedings under R.6(3).

P L D 1986 S C 162 rel.

‑ ‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑Show‑cause notice procedure‑‑Dispensing with regular enquiry‑‑Mere issuance of charge‑sheet, held. would not take away jurisdiction of Authorised Officer to adopt certain procedure laid down in rules keeping in view facts of case‑‑Charge‑sheet served by Authorised Officer‑‑Authorised Officer charged by Authority on request of civil servant‑‑Second Authorised Officer keeping in view facts and documentary proof deciding to adopt show‑cause notice procedure‑ Objection that charge‑sheet once having been served holding of regular enquiry was a must repelled.

‑‑Manzoor Hussain, ex‑Junior Clerk, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, and the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and impugned orders, dated 23‑9‑1985 and 4‑2‑1986, be set aside and he be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, served charge‑sheet alongwith statement of allegations on the appellant on 13‑5‑1985, for a number of irregularities in connection with his work as Registration Clerk so pointed out by Director Land Record in his note. However, later on an Authorised Officer was appointed in this regard who did not consider it desirable to hold a regular enquiry in this case as according to him the charges stood proved by documentary evidence and issued him a final show‑cau3e A notice. The appellant was not satisfied with the impartiality of the said) Authorised Officer and requested that the same may be relieved of this job and somebody else be appointed in his place. The learned Deputy Commissioner, by accepting his request, appointed Syed Iftikhar Hussain Babar, Assistant Commissioner (UT) Sheikhupura, to act as Authorised Officer, and proceed against the appellant. Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Babar, served a show‑cause notice upon the appellant on 18‑7‑1985, giving him detailed information in respect of allegations levelled against him. The appellant submitted his reply to the said show‑cause notice on 10‑8‑1985, which was considered unsatisfactory and the Authorised Officer recommended major penalty against the appellant to the Authority. The Authority, vide detailed order, dated 23‑8‑1985, removed the appellant from service in public interest. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, who, vide his order, dated 4‑2‑1986 rejected the same. Hence this‑appeal.

4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that case was registered against the appellant vide F.I.R. 120 dated 15‑6‑1985, with the Police, result of which is still unknown.

5. 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.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the Authority decided to 'adopt procedure prescribed for holding a regular enquiry then it could not switch over to another procedure leaving the first half way as has been done in this case. It was further argued that the Authority after getting a criminal case registered against the appellant, exactly on the same, allegations had become functus officio in the matter by himself deciding to leave the fate of the appellant with the local Police. In this manner it has been argued that the appellant should not have been proceeded under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. He has challenged the procedure of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules so adopted against the appellant as illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the learned Deputy Commissioner has held the appellant guilty for ulterior motive whereas there was no evidence on record to substantiate the same. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that if there was ulterior motive of the appellant, then a regular inquiry in his case was must. He has assailed the integrity of both the Authorised Officers as according to him, both of them were biased against the appellant. A great stress was laid on the fact that the learned Deputy Commissioner lost sight of the fact that the said outstanding amount covered a period of four years from 1978‑82 when the appellant was not there as Registration Moharrir, therefore, to hold guilty foil that period, was not justified. With regard to the allegation of under‑stamping the agreement, dated 28‑11‑1984, he has challenged the observations of the Director Land Record that it amounted to sale was not legally sustainable and has submitted that the view taken by the Director, Land Record was not correct.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has supported the two judgments on the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as of the learned Commissioner in extenso and has submitted that the very reading of the judgment of learned Deputy Commissioner would reveal that he applied his mind to deal with all aspects of this case and was justified in imposing penalty of, removal from service upon the appellant, as the appellant proved himself, most inefficient as well as a person whose integrity could also be spelt out from his conduct regarding the under‑stamping on the disputed documents. He has also highlighted the fact that the appellant was a trouble shooter who was dissatisfied with every body and had the audicity to challenge the impartiality of first Authorised Officer and second Authorised Officer, as a person of this prediliction would be highly unsuitable for Government job. He has prayed that the appellant's appeal be dismissed.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced try the parties and first of all would advert to the legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that once the charge‑sheet Was served upon the appellant, it was a. must for the Authority or the Authorised Officer to hold a regular inquiry against him, in view of I the facts of the case so given by the learned Deputy Commissioner, we do not find this argument is tenable, According to para. 2 of the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, he appointed A.D.C. (G), Sheikhupura on 19‑6‑1985, as Auhorised Officer with the direction to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. The Authorised Officer after going through the documentary evidence decided to take action against the appellant and issued him a show‑cause notice on 22‑6‑1985. In response to the same the appellant submitted his reply on 4‑7‑1985. The appellant was given personal hearing on 17‑7‑1985. However, at this stage the appellant expressed lack of confidence in the Authorised Officer/ A.D.C.(G), Sheikhupura and as such on the request of the appellant he withdrew the enquiry from the A.D.C.(G) and entrusted the same to Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Babar A.C.(UT)/ Magistrate 2nd Class, Sheikhupura. The second Authorised Officer decided to proceed against the appellant under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and issued him a show‑cause notice on 18‑7‑1985. The appellant once again came with the same complaint that he has no confidence in the said officer also. This is why his application was rejected and the matter was concluded by the said Authorised Officer on the specific law points raised by the appellant that once charge‑sheet was issued inquiry was must, does not prevail with us on the ground that mere issue him a charge‑sheet does not take away the jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer, keeping in view the facts of the case, to adopt certain procedure laid down in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules against the appellant. Rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, is always involved when it is found that evidence on record is sufficient to prove the allegation against the appellant, therefore, a regular inquiry could be dispensed with. Their lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the case of Anisur Rehman that in every case where allegation may be corruption, regular inquiry is not must as facts of each and every case always differ with each other and the Authorised Officer can ‑take action under the said rule 6(3) of the E&D Rules, if it is found that the said can serve the ends of justice. Similarly in the case of Tassadaq Hussain Bokhari P L D 1986 S C 162 their lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have once again held that rule 6(3) is enabling rule for Authorised Officer to proceed against a civil servant and whereas it is found that the purpose of justice would not be served by invoking this rule, a regular inquiry would be desirable. In the present case, after going through the record, we are fully satisfied that the Authorised Officer was justified to proceed against the appellant under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (END) Rules, 1975.

9. With regard to the allegation that at the time of inspection by the Director, Land Record, the register was incomplete, the same has not been denied by the appellant although later on, these registers were completed by him. The fact remains that the observation of the Director, Land Record was fully borne out from record with regard to second charge that appellant was found grossly inefficient and: irresponsible, we find, he failed to maintain the recovery register although huge amount of Rs.2,34,893.95. What the appellant was required to do, was to maintain the said register, by posting of recovery of Government dues and to bring this issue to the notice of the Authority to effect such recovery. His commission to perform this responsibility resulted in loss to Government. The Inspector‑General rightly observed that this was the height of irresponsibility on the part of the appellant and he was justified in his said observation. With regard to the charge that the appellant was guilty of misconduct by causing wrongful loss to the Provincial Ex‑Chequer and providing wrongful gain to certain parties with an ulterior motive, we find that the appellant failed to properly evaluate the deeds presented to him for registration. We are fully in agreement with the learned Deputy Commissioner that it was not an commission but was a deliberate act on his part. The Inspector‑General, Registration, made a reference to one of these cases and observed that deed No. 1324, dated 12‑4‑1984; was described as an agreement and so the appellant accepted the deed on a simple Non‑Judicial Paper of the value of Rs.5 and also charged a meager amount of Rs.100 as registration fee. According to the Inspector‑General, Registration, it was actually a sale‑deed because it envisaged the delivery of possession of agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. one lac. As it was a sale‑deed and not an Agreement, so a stamp duty of Rs.4,000 and registration fee of Rs.1,000 should have been charged, The plea of the appellant that it was not his job to evaluate .the fee and that it was the responsibility of Naib‑Tehsildar/Sub‑Registrar concerned, who should have been penalized, is hardly convincing because in fact it is the Registration Clerk who completes all these documents and then of course Naib‑Tehsildar comes into display. Learned Deputy Commissioner has rightly observed that while it may be correct that Naib‑Tehsildar was culpable for this act of commission the appellant would not be absolved from the same. We have carefully perused the judgments of both learned Deputy Commissioner as well as of learned Commissioner and do not find any extenuating circumstances in his favour and have come to the conclusion that the penalty was in consonance with the guilt of the appellant. In our opinion both the judgments are unexceptionable.

10. In the light of the above discussion, 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.