1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Maroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER)‑Mr. Muhammad Afzal Zia, ex -Veterinary Compounder has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleded the Superintendent, Livestock Experiment Station, Kheri Murat and the Director, Livestock Farms, Government of the Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 15‑8‑1981 passed by respondent No. 1 be set aside and the appellant be directed to be re‑instated in his original job with all back benefits.

3. Brief history of the case is that the appellant was working as Veterinary Compounder at Livestock Experiment Station, Kheri Murat. The appellant was suspended vide order dated 17‑7‑1981 by respondent No.

1. The appellant was served with a charge‑sheet dated 17‑7‑1981 along with statement of allegations. Mr Ijaz Khan, Veterinary Officer, Livestock Experiment Station, Kheri Murat was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide Order No. 804 dated 17‑7 1981 by respondent No.

1. The reply to the charge‑sheet was submitted by the appellant on 19‑7‑1981. The enquiry was conducted by this Enquiry Officer. As a result of this enquiry the appellant was served with the show‑cause notice dated 28‑7‑1981. His services were terminated vide order No. 919‑2/88‑I‑B dated 15‑8‑1981 for misconduct by respondent No.

1. The appellant filed an appeal to Respondent No. 2 but without any response. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has not been proceeded according to the procedure as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The Enquiry Officer was appointed but the enquiry conducted by him was slip‑shod. The appellant was not afforded an opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses. The show cause notice was also not received by the appellant and thus he was condemned unheard and his services were terminated without allowing him opportunities to defend himself. The learned counsel thus concluded that the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules being defective the impugned order be set aside and appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits. The learned District Attorney on the other hand contro verted these arguments by saying that the enquiry was held properly according to the Rules. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who gave his findings. The appellant did not co‑operate with the Enquiry Officer and did not make him available for the enquiry. It is clear from the record that he did receive the show‑cause notice but failed to avail the opportunity of being heard, in person wilfully. Thus he has beer. Tightly and lawfully proceeded against. He was found guilty of misconduct, thus, the penalty given to him is in order.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel, the learned District Attorney and also have perused very carefully the record of this case. It is strange to note that the appellant was proceeded against and suspended on 17‑7‑1981 only after one month and eight days of joining at this Experimental Station. It takes some time to settle and get himself acquainted with work by an official at a new place of his posting. The enquiry was done in haste. The enquiry is defective as it was started by the Enquiry Officer, even, before the reply of the Charge‑sheet was received from the appellant. The appellant gave reply to the charge‑sheet on 19‑7‑1981 whereas the statement of the witness, Muhammad Arshad, Stock Assistant, was recorded on 17‑7‑1981, Muhammad Sadiq Maqaddam on 16‑7‑1981 and Fakir Muhammad, Tracto Driver also on 16‑7‑1981 by the Enquiry Officer. There is no date o recording of the statements of Rub Nawaz and Muhammad Sadiq Gawalas. Moreover the appellant did not show confidence on the Enquiry Officer and this was made known to the authorised officer through Veterinary Officer Health L. E. S., Kheri Murat in his reply to the charge‑sheet by the appellant. The Enquiry Officer would have obtained the order of the authorised officer on this issue. But the Enquiry Officer continued to hold and Complete the enquiry which has denied the appellant a right of fair enquiry. Enquiry file also shows that the appellant was not afforded any opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses. During the course of arguments before us, the appellant also pleaded that he did not receive the show cause notice and the receipt produced on the record by the respondents was not under his signatures. We have perused this receipt and we find that this receipt was obtained in a very peculiar manner and the signatures thereon of the appellant appear to be doubtful. Even, if the appellant did not appear on first personal hearing, he could have been afforded any other chance of personal hearing in the interest of justice. The order of his termination from service has also been passed in undue hurry. He was charge‑sheeted on 17‑7‑1981, enquiry was completed against him and he was removed from service on 15‑8‑1981, within a period of less than one month.

6. In view of the above analysis of the entire facts of the case, as well as the legal objections involved we, hereby, set aside the impugned order, remand this case with the direction that the respondents may proceed against the appellant de novo, if so advised, after observing the required formalities as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The appellant will be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable him to face the de novo enquiry. The decision regarding his pay for the period from the date of termination of his service to the date of his re‑instatement shall depend upon the decision of the above directed enquiry. There will be no orders as to costs. Case remanded.