1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑In this appeal Rana Muhammad Iqbal, an ex‑Accounts Clerk, Treasury Office, Sargodha, is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner, Sargodha Division, dated 14th January, 1974 vide which he was removed from service. An appeal, preferred by the appellant to the Government, on 8th May, 1974 against the order of Com missioner, was also rejected on 7th May, 1974. The facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a charge -sheet by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, stating that he had acquir ed a plot in People's Colony, Faisalabad, without prior permission, that he erected a bungalow on this plot which cost Rs. 50,000 and this he could not do within his known sources of income, that he arranged a collusive Civil Suit against himself to cover the existence of the bungalow, that he deliberately delayed 'the bills of two female School Teachers, and that he had the reputation of being corrupt, a womaniser and given to other malpractices. After enquiry by a Magistrate the appellant was served with a notice to show cause why major penalty should not be inflicted on him. But this was done by a new Commissioner of Sargodha Division who toad himself initiated the case against the appellant during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabed. After receipt of reply to the show cause notice, the Commissioner moved the Government to entrust the enquiry proceedings to some other Commissioner. The Government nominated the Commissioner, Lahore Division, who agreed with the find ings of the Inquiry Officer and directed that a show‑cause notice for dis missal be issued to the appellant. On the issue of the notice of dismissal and final orders, the case was referred to the Finance Department for advice. After obtaining the advice from the Finance Department, the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, proceeded to pass the order which is impugned. The parties were heard and the record examined. It is clear that the action against the appellant was taken on the basis of two charges stated to have been proved during the course of the enquiry, the construction of a house beyond his means, and collusion with his brother to get the house transferred in the name of the latter after a consent decree. We notice, however, that in respect of the all important issue, i. e. the actual cost of construction of the house, the enquiry did not place reliance on technical evaluation and assessment of the building's worth. The Inquiry Officer recounted the number of rooms in the house and decided that such a place could not be constructed in Rs. 17,000 only as claimed by the appellant. The appellant, on his own, submitted an estimate made by the P. W. D. which put the value of the house at a little over Rs. 22,

000. Since that estimate was secured by the appellant himself, it may have been considered to be biased. In any case the respondents made no attempt to obtain an estimate of value from the many technical experts available to them. In view of the above, we would like the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, to go into the matter of the cost of the house again. The case is re-manded to him with the direction that a final decision about the appellants retirement from service should be taken only after obtaining a clear estimate/from the Buildings Department of the cost of the building in question at the time of its construction.