P L D 1973 Lahore 45 (PLP)

Ch. Khalilur Rahman for Petitioner. Rafiq Ahmad Bangash for A: G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th April 1972. In connection with certain departmental proceedings, the petitioner who at the relevant time was a Girdawar, was issued a charge‑sheet on 25th of November 1963. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 6‑1‑1964, in which he refuted the allegations and submitted that he would lead defence. Consequently an enquiry was held by an Inquiry Officer before whom the petitioner appeared, cross‑examined the witnesses and took due part in those proceedings. The Inquiry Officer then compiled his report, which went against the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show‑cause notice on 12‑3‑1966 along with a copy of the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply which, however, was found unsatisfactory by the Collector, Lahore who on 27‑7‑1966 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success, as the same was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 15th November 1966, after hearing him. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 28th of October 1967. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders under Article 98 of the late Constitution.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the time of issuing the charge‑sheet, the Collector had not provisionally determined the penalty which he intended to impose upon the petitioner and in this way, according to him there had taken place a violation of rule 6 of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. The contention has no force. I have seen the original file wherein at the time of framing the charges, pro visional penalty was duly determined and rather a paragraph of the charge‑sheet itself recited that the penalty under rule 4 was intended to be imposed upon the petitioner which might extend to dismissal from service. At this stage it will be mentioned that the petitioner submitted his reply on 6‑1‑1964 which has been gone through by me from the original file. In that reply no objection of the kind had been raised. In these circumstances the point advanced, in my opinion cannot be given any serious consideration.

3. The next point argued was that the inquiry officer had been appointed by the Collector simultaneously with the issuance of the charge‑sheet. It is contended that the Collector should have waited till the reply of the petitioner and if thereafter he was not satisfied with the reply filed, he could have ordered an inquiry or appointed an inquiry officer under rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules. No doubt the things were not done, in that order, but it is to be pointed out that no objection about it was taken in the reply given by the petitioner on 6‑1‑1964. Rather he volunteered to face the inquiry and lead the defence. In this context it is not possible to give any serious consideration to the point which is being raised before me. The petitioner appeared in that inquiry, cross‑examined the witnesses and took due part in the proceedings which were all conducted in his presence. He has suffered no prejudice and his case has been examined by three officers ranging from the Collector up to the Member, Board of Revenue on merits. In these circumstances the objection raised in this case is reduced to a mere technicality and cannot be given any, effect to in the course of jurisdiction in Article 98 of the Constitution so as to declare the impugned proceedings or orders as to be without lawful authority in any manner.

4. Another point raised was that the Collector in his order of dismissal had recited that the petitioner had been dismissed in connection with the certain other departmental proceedings. Learned counsel states that this was not a correct recital of facts because the petitioner had not been dismissed in connection with any other departmental inquiry and had rather been exhonerated. The point raised is merely of appreciation of evidence and even though such an observation was made by the Collector, the same was not made the basis of dismissing his appeal or revision by the higher authorities. They main tained the dismissal of the petitioner independently on merits of the case and not on this consideration.

5. No other point was argued before me. The result is that this writ has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. K.B.A. Petition dismissed.