2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ARSHAD BIN AHMAD (MEMBER).

The appellant Muhammad Aslam Zahid ex-Assistant Excise and Taxation Office; Jhang was charge-sheeted on the following charges:-- "While performing his duties as A.E.T.O. Bhakkar, he in connivance with Malik Muhammad Nawaz the then Excise and Taxation Inspector Qayyum Nawaz, MTC and private person i.e. Mr. Muhammad Hussain, recommended to the MRA, the transfer of ownership of the Vehicle No.LHN-4112 in back dates i.e. the transfer of ownership was effected on 10-11-1998, whereas the transfer fee was deposited on 26-1-1999, therefore he committed fraud, forgery and misused his official powers with mala fide intentions." Enquiry was conducted and as a result thereof, he was found guilty of committing fraud, forgery and misuse of official powers with mala fide intention. He was awarded the penalty of removal from service vide impugned order dated 28-1-2006. His departmental appeal was rejected, by the Appellate Authority vide order, dated 31-7-2006.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was condemned unheard and that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him were illegal in that, the charges against him were based on a "draft charge-sheet" and. that, neither his statement was recorded by the Inquiry Officer nor a copy of inquiry report given to him. It was also contended that, no specific penalty was proposed against him either. Thus the appellant was deprived of his statutory right of defending himself. It was further contended that he had only obeyed the orders of Excise and Taxation Officer/Motor Registration Officer who had conveyed the orders to him through one Mr. Qayyum Naz, Motor Transport Clerk of the said office to register the Vehicle No. LHN/9112 on the verbal assurance that the registration fee of Rs.1,000 would be deposited in the Government Treasury and that, the said fee was in fact deposited in the Government Treasury after about two months. It was argued that no fraud or forgery was committed and that the appellant had only abided by the orders of his superior officer in good faith.

3. Learned District Attorney relying on the parawise comments of the departments opposed the contention raised.

4. Having gone through the record and heard the parties at length, it was found that the appellant has admitted in his appeal his ignorance of rules and that; he had only acted in good faith having been asked to do so by his superior officer with the assurance of depositing the aforesaid fee. As for the legal objections raised by the counsel for appellant regarding the lacunae in disciplinary proceedings, it was found that the enquiry proceedings started with a complaint against the appellant, the Excise and Taxation Officer and the aforesaid Motor Transport Clerk. The charge-sheet served upon the appellant bears the subject as "a draft charge-sheet" and contains the allegations therein. No show-cause notice was found to have been issued by the Competent Authority. Further, although the charge-sheet does speak of awarding of one or more penalty under section 3 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, it does not specify any penalty proposed to be imposed. Thus the proceedings against the appellant stand vitiated. However, the fact that, the appellant was guilty of the charge of late deposition of registration as admitted by him cannot be ignored.

5. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is partially accepted and the punishment of removal from service is converted into stoppage of two increments for two years. The period he remained out of service is treated as leave of the kind due. No order as to costs. Consigned to record room. H.B.T./35/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order Accordingly.