1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL RASHID (MEMBER).‑The appellant Zaheer Ahmed Khan, while employed as Population Officer (Grade‑16) at Attock, was suspended on 26th August, 1980 and served a charge‑sheet, dated 31st August, 1980 by the Additional Secretary, Population Division. The charge‑sheet is reproduced as under (1) That on 18th August, 1980 you absented yourself from the place of your duty and visited Rawalpindi in defiance of the instruc tions of the Director‑General, Population Office, Punjab disal lowing the grant of any leave for that date. (2) That you participated in an unauthorised convention/meeting of certain officials employed under the Population Division, held at the District Population Office, Rawalpindi on 18th August, 1980, protesting against the disallowing of leave for that day by the Director‑General, Population Office. Punjab, adopting certain demands of the employees under the Population Division, and electing a Chairman of an Action Committee, thereby deliberately violating the normal procedure open to Government servants for submission of their representations or ventilation of their grievances, if any. (3) That thereafter you, or the Chairman and/or the Secretary- General of the so‑called Action Committee you elected at the meeting, aired your adopted demands/grievances through the Press in violation of rule 18 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1964 and various other instructions as detailed in the statement of allegations enclosed. . (4) That the above acts amount to "misconduct" on your part as defined in para. 3 of the Government Servants (Efficiency arid Discipline) Rules, 1973. And whereas Mr. Jamil Haider Shah, Joint Secretary, Population Division, has been appointed Inquiry Officer to conduct the proceedings in respect of the above charges against you. Now, therefore, you are hereby called upon under rule 6 (2) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 to submit your written defence to the Inquiry Officer, within seven days of the date of receipt of this charge‑sheet, and also to state whether you desire to be heard in person. Take note that if no defence is submitted within the specified period, the enquiry shall be conducted and ex parte decision shall be taken on your case."

2. As a result of enquiry and according to the Population Division, the charges of misconduct having been established, the appellant was dismissed with immediate effect, vide Population Division notification, dated 11th February, 1981.

3. The appellant preferred his departmental appeal on 14th March, 1981 to the President of Pakistan. He received no reply and filed his present appeal on 15th July, 1981 within the stipulated period of 120 days against the impugned order of his dismissal.

4. The appellant who pleaded his own case, assailed his dismissal on various grounds the following being worth mentioning: ‑ (a) That the copy of enquiry report had not been made available to him. As such, the entire proceedings culminating in his dismissal were void ab initio. (b) That the order of his dismissal had been passed by an authority not competent to do so.

5. No doubt, the enquiry report should have been made available to the appellant and its non‑supply has been an irregularity, which we shall advert to shortly. We find that the appellant was already on leave for one month, with effect from 20th July, 1980. Charge (1) is, therefore, misconceived and should not have been preferred in the first instance. Charge (2), however, does stand substantiated because the appellant admitted having attended the meeting before the Enquiry Officer. Even at the bar, the appellant admitted having attended the meeting, which he does not consider to be unauthorised. We feel differently and hold the appellant guilty of this charge. Charge (3) has not been proved as admitted by the Enquiry Officer himself. What it really amounts to is that charge (4) of misconduct does stand established by virtue of charge (2). The plea of non‑supply of the enquiry report is, in our opinion of no consequence in this particular case by virtue of the appellant's admis sion of having attended the unauthorised meeting and his defence has, by no means, been prejudiced by non‑supply of the said report.

7. As to 4 (b) above, we have had the benefit of perusing the relevant file and discovered that the dismissal order of the appellant had been passed by none other than the Secretary himself who was the competent authority in this case.

8. The appellant brought to our notice the cases of Messrs Zafar Saleem, Malik Muhammad Aslam and Syed Muhammad Hasnain, all Population Officers involved in the same irregu larity as the appellant. Their dismissal orders were cancelled pending disposal of their cases vide three notifications of Population Division all dated 17th of June, 1981. The appellant placed these noti fications on record with our permission.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents did concede that even though the appellant's guilt stood established, the punishment of dismissal was rather harsh.

10. In the interest of justice and equity, we feel that the ends would be met if the appellant's punishment of dismissal is modified to that of compulsory retirement and we order accordingly. He shall be entitled to pensionary or terminal benefits as the case may be.

11. No order as to costs. A. E, .Orders accordingly.