2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAKHAR HAYAT (MEMBER-V).

Brief facts of the case are that while posted as Deputy Director Agriculture (Ext.) Shakargarh the appellant was proceeded against under the provisions of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The order of the inquiry was passed by the respondent No.2, on 29-7-2004 and statement of allegations issued whereas the respondent No.3 was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The respondent No.3 prepared the charge-sheet and instead of communicating the statement of allegations, he prepared the statement of allegations at his own level and communicated it to the appellant who submitted its reply to the Inquiry Officer on 13-9-2004. After submission of inquiry report by the respondent No.3 the appellant was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 imposed the major penalty of reduction to lower stage in the pay scale and recovery of 50% of loss (Rs.591310) vide order dated 10-3-2005. The appellant preferred a representation but vide order dated 29-9-2005 the same was rejected by the respondent No.1.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned orders were against the law and facts for the reason that no procedure was adopted for conducting inquiry which has caused injustice to the appellant.

3. The respondents submitted their parawise comments wherein it was reiterated that inquiry proceedings were conducted quite in accordance with law and punishment imposed upon the appellant was also correct.

4. Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been considered and available record gone through.

5. It was reported that the respondent No.3 (Inquiry Officer) has since retired, so, the Departmental Representative brought the original record of the proceedings. It is strange to the note that although the respondent No.2, the authority, signed the statement of allegations but the Inquiry Officer prepared charge-sheet and issued the statement of allegations under his own signature. The inquiry proceedings were also conducted in a strange manner. On 12-10-2004 the complainant Muhammad Sharif (Deputy Director) appeared before the Inquiry Office and submitted his written statement. No opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the appellant whereafter the Inquiry Officer examined the record and prepared his notes. He also prepared questionnaire on each and every allegations and then sought answers of the appellant on it. No separate statement of appellant was recorded nor he was asked to produce any defence if he wanted to do so. The explanations in answers and questionnaire do not fulfil the requirement of law because in that event the appellant was confined to the answers of the questions which were put to him whereas if he was allowed to adduce his own evidence in defence then he would have been at liberty to bring any other evidence also. Recording of statement in questionnaire form has also been disapproved by the Superior Courts. In these circumstances of the case the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The case requires de novo inquiry.

6. For what has been discussed above, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and impugned orders are set aside. The departmental proceedings against the appellant shall be deemed to be still pending. The respondent No.2, the authority shall now appoint a new Inquiry Officer well versed with conducting inquiry, who will communicate the statement of allegations to the appellant signed by the authority, seek reply and proceed to record evidence. In case of witnesses the appellant shall be given an opportunity of cross-examination on them and to adduce his own evidence if he so desires. On receipt of inquiry report the matter shall be decided afresh strictly in accordance with law. H.B.T./11/PST Order accordingly.