Find a Lawyer

Case No. 190/671 of 1986, decided on 13th September, 1986.

‑‑‑Rr. 6 (3) & 7‑‑Show‑cause notice‑‑Justification for and dispensing with regular enquiry‑‑Charges of negligence of duty and wilful absence proved by documentary evidence and reports of superior Officer‑‑Resort to regular enquiry to verify those charges which stood proved by documentary evidence and visits of Reporting Officer, held, was hardly necessary.

1983 P L C (C.S.) 1218; 1984 P L C (C.S.) 1147; P L D 1974 SC 393; 1984 P L C (C.S.) 518; 1982 P L C (C.S.) 692; 1986 PLC (C.S.) 610; 1984 P L C (C.S.) 1366; 1980 P L C (C.S.) 512 and 1984

P L C (C.S.) 293 distinguished.

‑‑‑Rr. 4 & 8‑‑Quantum of punishment‑‑Past service record‑‑Reliance upon‑‑Charges of negligence of duty and wilful absence proved‑ Authority taking into consideration past chequered record also‑‑Major penalty of removal from service, in circumstances, held, was not exceptionable.

‑‑‑R.15‑‑Appeal‑‑Determination of‑‑Appellate authority while passing short order relying upon detailed order of punishing authority‑‑Complete hearing given to accused by Appellate authority before reaching conclusion of dismissing appeal‑‑Appellate order, in circumstances, held, was not a non‑speaking order.

Appellant in person.

Manzoor Hussain Bhatti, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Muhammad Ikram Qureshi, ex‑Junior Clerk/Moharir, Vernacular Record Room, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 4‑2‑1986 passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore which resulted in his removal from service as well as against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, dated 19‑9‑1985 and has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner/ Authority, Sheikhupura and Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the appeal be accepted and he be re‑instated in service with all back benefits by setting aside the impugned orders dated 19‑9‑1985 and 4‑2‑1986.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice under Rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 by the Deputy Commissioner/ Authority, Sheikhupura; in which various charges were levelled against him and he was asked to file his explanation within 14 days of the receipt of the said notice. The appellant submitted his reply which was considered unsatisfactory by the Authority and vide order dated 19‑9‑1985 he imposed major penalty of removal from service. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore who upheld the order of the Authority and dismissed the same. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the appellant who has argued his case at length as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. The appellant has argued that the application of Rule 6(3) was uncalled for and he was liable to be proceeded against as the charges against him were of such a nature which should have been thoroughly investigated. For this he has relied on number of rulings reported as 1983 P L C (C.S.) 1218; 1984 P L C (C.S.) 1147; P L D 1974 (S.C.) 393; 1984 P L C (C.S.) 518; 1982 P L C (C.S.) 692; 1984 P L C (C.S.) 610; 1984 P L C (C.S.) 1366; 1980 P L C (C.S.) 418; 1980 PLC (C.S.) 512 and 1984 P L C (C.S.) 293. On the srength of these authorities he has vehemently argued that his case was of a regular enquiry and not that of proceeding under Rule 6(3). He has further pointed out that in earlier to this show‑cause notice he was dismissed from service on 30‑9‑1980 but his _ appeal was accepted and he was re‑instated in service. The appellant has further submitted that his writing a letter to the President of Pakistan was due to circumstances which has led to frustration against the attitude of his superiors who had launched a campaign of vilification against him. On this, the authority became against him in the matter, which according to him resulted in his removal from service.

6. With regard to the order of the learned Commissioner it has been submitted that the same was not a speaking order as he has totally endorsed the findings expressed by the learned Deputy Commissioner/Authority in his order without adverting to the points raised by him in his appeal before the learned Commissioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has supported the detailed judgment of the learned Deputy Commissioner and has submitted that a civil servant of which the appellant has proved himself hardly fit to retain into service particularly in view of his earlier chequred record of service which according to him was abominable record.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the detailed judgment of the learned Deputy Commissioner/Authority and find that the appellant had positively an unenviable record of service. He earned number of censures, suspensions, terminations and demotion etc. which has been larger than that of number of years of service that he has put in. The learned Deputy Commissioner has mentioned the, earlier chequred record of his service as under:‑

"(1) Remained under suspension from 4‑5‑1964 to 17‑9‑1964 due to absence from duty, without leave. Two increments stopped on 16‑9‑1964. Censured on 1‑3‑1965 on appeal by the Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore (File No.A/VI/6/580).

(2) Period from 7‑11‑1966 to 10‑11‑1966 was treated as absence from duty vide orders dated 5‑7‑1968. Two increments stopped. On appeal, he was warned and period treated as on duty.

(3) Three increments stopped with cumulative effect vide orders dated 18‑10‑1967. Appeal dismissed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division Lahore on 5‑7‑1968.

(4) Remained under suspension from 24‑10‑1968 to 31‑3‑1969 for not performing his duty in V.R.R. Removed from service on 24‑11‑1970. On appeal reduced in rank as Daftri on 9‑3‑1971 by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore. (File No.A‑VI‑6/319).

(5) Remained under suspension from 21‑8‑1969 to 24‑11‑1970 for rudeness with superiors. Censured on 24‑11‑1970 petition dismissed by Board of Revenue on 4‑1‑1972. (File No. A‑VI‑6/308).

(6) Remained under suspension from 9‑7‑1977 on the ground of constant inefficiency. The enquiry was not decided finally due to his resignation. (File No.A‑VI‑6/515 and 447).

(7) Remained involved in criminal case of preparing forged and bogus arms licenses. He was suspended on 17‑1‑1975 but acquitted on 30‑6‑1976. (File No. A‑VI‑6/162).

(8) Remained under suspension from 23‑7‑1980 to 29‑8‑1980 due to wilful absence. He was not allowed to draw pay for suspension period except already drawn. He tendered his resignation which was accepted on 14‑9‑1980. He was re‑instated under the orders dated 9‑11‑1983 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal (File No. A‑VI‑6/469).

(9) Aggrieved by the order wherein he was not allowed to draw pay of suspension period except already drawn, he filed a civil suit despite the fact that he was refused relief by all the concerned quarters keeping in view of his poor record." With regard to the present charges, it would be sufficient to say that the law quoted by the appellant before us does not apply to his case which is distinguishable from the impact of the said ruling. The first charge is of negligence of duty during his posting in V.R.R. and the appellant has failed to tender any plausible explanation against the said charge. From the perusal of the record it is obvious that the files checked or consigned or destructed during the period under reference in the V . R . R . Branch carry the names of other Junior Clerk posted in the said Branch. There is hardly a single entry in "Register Aam" in hand of the appellant. This record would show that since 1985 when he was posted in the V.R.R. Branch till the initiation of the enquiry, there has not been a single file indicating that the same was taken up or disposed off by the appellant. As regards the second charge of wilful absence from duty, the chain of complaints were received by the Authority that the appellant was not attending to office work and that he was often found loitering in various branches of D.C. Office, especially in Arms Licensing Branch. This matter got verified through Ch. Abdul Rashid, Magistrate Ist Class and vide report of the said Magistrate dated 20‑7‑1985 it is apparent that he found the appellant absent from his Branch on all the 13 occasions. However, the 3rd charge of sending communications to various senior officers of various Department without using the official channel, it has been found that the same should be correct according to the record of this case. In these circumstances, there is hardly any interest to hold a regular enquiry to verify these charges as the charges were on the very face of it proved by the documentary evidence and the visits of the learned Magistrate who has reported against the appellant.

9. We do not find any reason to interfere with the detailed order of the learned Deputy Commissioner who has observed in the end of his judgment as under:‑

"I feel that in the interest of healthy and effective Administration, unscrupulous, irresponsible and good‑for‑nothing public servants like the accused official should not be allowed to remain in Government service. As the charges of negligence of duty and wilful absence from duty amounting to misconduct have been proved against the accused official and as the seriousness of charges calls for the imposition of major penalty, I exercising my powers as the Authority, hereby order his removal from service forthwith."

10. In the above circusmtances this Tribunal is of the considered', opinion that the major penalty imposed upon him is fully justified ands no exception can be taken to it.

11. The learned Commissioner while passing a short order has relied, on the detailed order of the Deputy Commissioner, it would have been repetition of the entire material if the same would have been produced in his judgment. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the, order of the learned Commissioner was not a speaking order, as the learned Commissioner had given complete hearing to the appellant and has come to the conclusion after perusing the entire record of this case and the record of the learned Deputy Commissioner.

12. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed being without any‑ force. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Judgment to be communicated to the parties.

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.