1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑ S. 4‑Removal from service on account of misconduct‑No weak ness either in proceedings of Enquiry Committee or in procedure adopted‑No plausible grounds on merit‑Interference refused by Tribunal. JUDGMENT M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant wants the order regarding his removal from service declared invalid. He was working as Senior Clerk in the Minimum Wages Board, when on 9th September, 1978, he was served with a charge‑sheet conveying the following charges that: ‑ (i) You have made major mistakes in the despatch register i.e. instead of allotting Serial No. 1748 onward to the letters issued on or after 20th August, 1978 you allotted Serial No. 1048 onward. Similarly you allotted one Serial No. to two different letters i.e. 1121 (actual 1821) instead of 1821 and 1822 in the same register. (ii) You also made major mistakes in the Stamp Register. (iii) You have not been, so far able to give a speed of 35 words per minute in typing. (iv) You have become habitual late comer. You arrived in the office on 9th September, 1978 at 8‑50 a.m. (v) You have not been able to properly maintain the office rules and other important documents. (vi) You issued office copies Departments. (vii) In some cases you issued the dak very late.

2. On his submitting a reply to the charge‑sheet an Enquiry Com mittee, consisting of three officers of the Board was appointed to hold an enquiry on the basis of the charge‑sheet. The Enquiry Committee gave the finding that except for charges 4 and 7 all others stood proved. The appellant was consequently removed from service after issue of show -cause notice vide order dated 22nd October, 1978 made by the Secretary of the Board. His appeal to Chairman (respondent No. 1) was rejected on 6th January, 1979 as was a mercy petition to the same authority on 17th March, 1979.

3. The parties were heard. The appellant impugned the order of his removal from service on the grounds that during the enquiry no wit nesses were examined and that the Secretary was not invested with the necessary powers. The Delegation of Powers Rules in respect of the Board were shown to us and it was found that the Secretary was the competent authority in this respect. We found no other weakness either in the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee or the procedure adopted to remove the appellant from service, nor was there any plausible ground' offered before us to question the merits on the basis of which the im pugned order was passed. We are afraid there is no reason far us to interfere in the matter. The, appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs, Appeal dismissed.