1990 PLP 1435 (SCMR)

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition filed by Abdul Hameed, petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 31‑10‑1987, dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was Head Clerk, Colony Branch, attached with the office of Deputy Commissioner, Vehari, endorsed a false note put up by Allah Dilta, Colony Clerk, as a result of which conveyance deed regarding the auction sale of lot No. 7 in Chak No. 11‑WB was delivered to the auction‑purchaser, even though the full price had not been paid and the auction of the said lot had been de‑confirmed by the Board of Revenue. The office note of the Colony Clerk had stated that the auction‑purchaser had proceeded against the de‑confirmation of the auction by the Board of Revenue through writ petition, where the de-confirmation had been declared null and void, even though no such writ petition had been filed by the auction‑purchaser. It was also stated in the office note that the entire auction money had been deposited by the auction‑purchaser, whereas the advance had been taken back by the auction purchaser after the Board of Revenue had de-confirmed the auction. The petitioner was accordingly served a show‑cause notice to which he submitted his reply. He was granted hearing by the A.D.C. (G)/AC who submitted the case to the Authority for imposition of the major penalty in having failed to point out the true facts to the higher authorities. The petitioner was served with a notice for personal hearing and. after due consideration of the same, the Authority removed the petitioner from service on 12‑3‑1985. The petitioner thereafter preferred any appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, who rejected the same on 18‑5‑1986. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was rejected on 31‑10‑1987. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against this judgment.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the order dispensing with the regular inquiry was incompetent, as without the inquiry it was not possible to determine whether the advance money, paid by Nazir Ahmad, auction‑purchaser, had been taken back by him, or whether the petitioner had delivered the Sale -Deed to the auction‑purchaser on personal level. It is further submitted that under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, only the authorised officer could have dispensed with the inquiry, but in the instance case the authority dispensed with the same.

4. It is clear that the inquiry was dispensed with by the authorised officer, which is obvious from the show‑cause notice dated 12‑9‑1983 issued by the authorised officer, A.D.C. (G)/AC, Vehari. It is further clear that no regular inquiry was necessary to prove the false statements made by the Colony Clerk in the office note put up by him, as inquiry officer only had to see whether there was order of the High Court declaring the order of de-confirmation of the auction as null and void and whether the advance paid by the auction‑purchaser had been taken back by him or not and whether the petitioner had not proceeded mala fide or recklessly in endorsing the office note, without taking care to ascertain whether the facts stated therein were true. At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the paper book. No substantial legal question of public importance arises in the case. The Tribunal has thread bare gone into objections raised by the petitioner and has found no force in them. The appreciation of the material on the record by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine. A.A./A‑697/S Petition dismissed.