1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"That you, while posted as General Assistant (Revenue) Multan were Incharge of Colony work of Multan District and. files relating to various schemes of State land were routed through you to the District Collector. The file relating to the grant of proprietary rights and preparation of conveyance Deed for tube‑well lot measuring 157‑A‑1K‑4M situated in Chak No. 14‑Faiz, tehsil and district Multan under Tube‑well Scheme, in favour of Nawab Sadiq Hussain Qureshi son of Nawab Ashiq Hussain was sent to you by Mr. Muhammad Din, the then Colony Clerk, Assistant Commissioner's Office, Multan, vide Dak Bahai No. 3421, dated 26th December, 1973 but the same was never returned to Assistant Commissioner's Office, Multan. You had called the said official in your office during May, 1974 and after showing him an order of Syed Sarfraz Hussain the then Deputy Commissioner, Multan on the file in question had asked him to prepare challans for payment of purchase price and stamp duty etc. As was desired by you the challanz were prepared by the said Colony Clerk of Assistant Commissioner's Office, Multan (M. Muhammad Din) in your office room and were then handed over to you. Subsequently after deposit of dues in the Government Treasury you again called the said official to your office and got the Conveyance Deed. prepared by him in your presence and after getting the signatures of Syed Abdul Hakim Shah, Ex‑Assistant Commissioner, Multan, as a witness kept the file with you for obtaining the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, thereon. You never returned the file to the Assistant Commissioner's office and the same is not available in his office. On 15th October, 1977 Ch. Hafeez Ullah, General Assistant (Revenue), Multan, enquired from you about this file on telephone. You had informed him that the said file was not with you and that it was in the custody of Mr. Nabi Bakhah Bhatti formerly Private Secretary to Nawab Sadiq Hussain Qureshi former Chief Minister, Punjab. You were asked to reduce your reply in writing and to send the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Muitan, through a special messanger. You forwarded your written reply, on 16th October, 1977 wherein you stated that the file in question was taken from you by Syed Abdul Hakim Shah, the then Assistant Commissioner, Multan, for submit ting the same alongwith the Conveyance Deed to the Deputy Com missioner. Multan and that you ceased to have any concern with it since it had become part of Assistant Commissioner's record. Your written reply conflicts with your verbal version and is not satisfactory because the Conveyance Deeds were to be got signed from the District Collector/ Deputy Commissioner, by you and not by the Assistant Commissioner, Multan. Syed Abdul Hakim Shah the then Assistant Commissioner, Multan has also not endorsed your version. You are, therefore, responsible fat the loss loss of the said file. The appellant submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge‑sheet, on 17th November, 1978 (Annexure. `B'). Mr. Hasnat Ahmad OSD‑III (Inquiries) S&GAD was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Government of Punjab, SGA & ID in November, 1978. The Enquiry Officer completed his enquiry. Recorded the statement of P. Ws. and D. Ws. and submitted his report to the Chairman. Enquiry and Anti- Corruption Cell, on 16th June, 1979. The Enquiry Officer held that the first part of the charge‑sheet was not proved and the remaining charges stood proved. The appellant was called for personal hearing on 21st November, 1980 by the then Secretary (Services), Government of the Punjab, SGA&ID. The appellant was awarded punishment of with holding of increment for two years without cumulative effect by the order of Mr. Sajjad‑ul‑Hassan, Additional Chief Secretary, S&GAD dated 26th December, 1981 (Annexure `M'). The appellant filed an appeal under Rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 before the Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary. This appeal was dismissed by the order of Mr. Sajjad‑ul‑Hassan, Additional Chief Secretary, SGA & ID, dated 21st April, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been found guilty of the charge against him on the basis of witness of the evidence of P. W. 5, Muhammad Din, who is the most important witness in the present case. It was vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this witness i.e. Muhammad Din, P. W. 5 was no worthy of any credence as he is a patent liar and in fact he is the person who was responsible for the loss of the file and was highly interested to involve the appellant to save himself from any punishment. In support of his contention, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that if a perusal is made to the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer it is clear that this witness had been changing his stand from time to time and making different state meats. It has been further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that a thorough investigation in the matter was also conducted by the police and they have challaned P. W. 5, Muhammad Din to stand the trial in the Court of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Multan. A perusal of the report under section 173, dated 14th June, 1981 (Annexure `S') clearly shows that police has held P. W., Muhammad Din, responsible for loss of the file. In this report the police has stated that P. W., Muhammad Din had managed to send the file to the Governor of the Punjab under registered cover when he was refused bail in case F. I. R. 61, dated 12th March, 1979 referred to above. It was also pointed out that the appellant has been cited as prosecution witness in this case. All these circumstances and facts of the case clearly falsify the allegation against the appellant.

5. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as far as evidence of P. W. 4 Hafiz Ullah, General Assistant (Revenue) is concerned ; that the appellant had orally told him on the telephone something else and afterwards had disclosed something different, through a so called written report, is mere concoction, as the suggestion that the file might have been taken away by Nabi Bakhsh Bhatti was that of his own and the appellant had only replied that the possibility could not be ruled out. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact P. W. 4, Mr. Hafiz Ullah and P. W. 3 Abdul Majeed Jameel were interested parties and had pressurised P. W. 5, Muhammad Din, to involve. The appellant. This is clearly proved from the fact that P. W. 5, Muhammad Din, had been compulsorily retired and was given inducement of reinstatement to make statement against the appellant and in fact he was reinstated later on. Concluding his arguments it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had never handled the file relating to Mr. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi and the, charge against him is false and he deserves to be acquitted from the same.

6. The above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, were rebutted by the learned District Attorney. He mainly relied on the findings of the enquiry report. ‑ He submitted that Hafiz Ullah, General Assistant (Revenue), Multan in his statement has stated that the appellant informed him on telephone that file was with Mr. Nabi Bakhsh Bhatti, the then Private Secretary to the then Chief Minister, Punjab. Relying on this statement it is submitted that Mr. Hafiz Ullah was disinterested witness and there is no reason that as to why he should falsely involve the appellant. He has further submitted that the statement of Muhammad Din, Clerk remained unrebutted on the point about custody of the file with the appellant. Concluding his arguments, the learned District Attorney has relied on the detail findings and reasonings given by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record so attached with the appeal. We have gone very carefully through the enquiry report of Mr. Hasnat Ahmad, OSD‑III (Enquiries) S&GAD on the principles of fairplay, equity and justice if we give the benefit to the appellant in ignoring the evidence of Muhammad Din, P. W. 5, on the basis that he was being proceeded in case F. I. R. No. 61, dated 12th March, 1979 wherein the appellant has been cited as prosecution witness, even then we have to rely on the evi dence of Mr. Hafiz Ullah, P. W. 4 which is reproduced below from the enquiry report, page 7, of the Enquiry Officer :‑

"P. W. 4 is Mr. Hafeez Ullah, General Assistant (Revenue), Multan. According to his statement on 4th October, 1977 the Deputy Com missioner bad asked him to make a search for this file He telephoned Mr. Muhammad Tufail Virk at Pakpattan who informed him that he would be visiting Multan and will discuss the matter with him. Again he telephoned the accused, on 15th October, 1977 and 16th October: 1977. This witness categorically stated that the accused told him that the file was with Mr. Nabi Bakhsh Bhatti the then Private Secretary to the Chief Minister, Punjab." The appellant though had taken the plea that he did not say these words to Hafiz Ullah, General Assistant (Revenue) but keeping the fact in view that Mr. .Hafiz Ullah was not an interested witness and had no enmity with the appellant, so it will be difficult for us not to ref and believe on the statement of Mr, Hafiz Ullah, General Assistant (Revenue). This very fact .had also persuaded the Enquiry Officer to conclude that the file in question remained in the custody of the appellant and Mr. Nabi Bakhsh Bhatti. Thus there are no reasons to disbelieve the following conclusion of the Enquiry Officer :‑

"Inclusion with each other thought it fit not to return the file as it would involve Mr. Nabi Bakhsh Bhatti who was the then Attorney of Mr. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi and the accused who was working as General Assistant (Revenue) and as such directly involved."

8. We have also perused the orders through which the appellant has been given the minor punishment and we feel that already a sympathetic and lenient view has been taken by the respondent vide‑imposing the penalty on the appellant and the appellant should have no grievance against these impugned orders.

9. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to cost. A.E. Appeal dismissed.