2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Service Appeal No. 11 of 2000 Appellant Ghulam Serwar was working as Range Forest Officer, Pasm. He was posted as such from 30‑I1‑1995 to 18‑11‑1997. On 12‑9‑1997, his explanation was called by the Secretary, Forest Department, for hearing excess amount for re‑plantation, causing loss of 23. million. The explanation was given by appellant on 18th September, 1997. Thereafter, on 19th December, 1997 a charge‑sheet alongwith statement of allegations was served upon the appellant, wherein it was alleged that while his posting as Range. Forest Officer, Pasni, he committed act of gross negligence and corruption, resulting in huge loss to the Government Exchequer. The said charge‑sheet, issued by the then Chief Secretary, was replied by appellant on 5‑11‑1998. Since the earlier charge‑sheet. was not specified, therefore, another charge‑sheet, dated 16‑3‑1998', was issued by the then Chief Minister alongwith statement of allegations in elaboration, which too was. replied by appellant on 30‑3‑1998. In the meanwhile, Mr. Hafizur Rehman, the then Secretary, Labour and Manpower, was appointed as Inquiry Officer., by the Authorized Officer. He conducted a detailed enquiry in respect of the allegations and during course whereof, also served the. appellant with a questionnaire, which was also replied by him on 23‑5‑199$. On completion of enquiry the I.O. submitted his report on 25‑9‑1998. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to appellant on 1‑5‑1999, which was duly replied by him on 19‑5‑1999. Subsequently the then Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Nasar, after providing personal hearing to the appellant, recommended for awarding him major penalty of dismissal from service and initiation of action for the recovery of Government Funds. On the basis of such recommendations the competent Authority i.e. the then Chief Ministers, in terms of rule 4(a) and (b) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1992 directed dismissal. of appellant from service in addition to recovery of Rs.35,92,130 vide Notification, dated .23rd October, 1999. Against the said order, appellant filed a departmental appeal and as his grievance was not redressed therefore, he has filed instant appeal. Service Appeal No. 12 of 2000 Appellant Muhammad Iqbal Zehri, was working as Range Forest Officer, Gawadar. He served as such, from 18‑9‑1995 to 5‑5‑1996. He was served with a charge‑sheet alongwith statement of allegations, dated 19th December, 1997, by the then Chief Secretary, wherein it was alleged, that during his posting as Range Forest Officer, Gawadar, he committed the act of gross negligence and corruption. The said charge‑sheet was replied by him on 2‑1‑1998. Thereafter, on 16th March, 1998, he was served with another charge‑sheet alongwith statement of allegations by the then Chief Minister, which too was replied by him on 3‑3‑1998. Thereafter, Mr. Hafizur Rehman, the then Secretary,. Labour and Manpower was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the competent Authority. He served the appellant with a questionnarie, which was answered by him on 15‑5‑1998. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately he submitted his report on 25‑9‑1998. After the submissions of report, a show‑cause notice was issued to appellant on 1‑5‑1998 which was replie8 by him on 17‑5‑1999. Thereafter, a personal hearing was given to appellant by the then Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team and ultimately he recommended for awarding of major penalty to appellant i.e. dismissal from service and initiation of‑ action for the recovery of Government Funds. The said recommendations were acted upon and by means of Notification, dated 23rd October, 1999 the competent Authority i.e., the then Chief Minister, Balochistan directed dismissal of appellant from service, in addition to recovery of Rs.11,95,

198. Against the said order, the appellant filed a Review Petition/Appeal and as his grievance was not redressed, therefore, he has filed instant appeal. Service Appeal No. 13 of 2000 It is case of appellant that, while he was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Gawadar on 12‑9‑1996. During the field duty, he met with a road accident on 12‑12‑1997 and rejoined his duties on 23‑4‑1997. On 19th December, 1997, the then Chief Secretary, served him, with a charge‑sheet alongwith statement of allegations, alleging therein that while he was posted as Acting Divisional Forest Officer, Gawadar Project from 12‑9‑1996 to '6‑7‑1997, he committed acts of gross negligence and corruption. The said charge‑sheet was followed by another charge‑sheer, alongwith statement of allegation dated 16‑3‑1998, issued by the Chief Minister. The same was replied by appellant on 20‑3‑1998. In the, meanwhile, Mr. Hafizur Rehman was appointed as Enquiry Officer, by the competent Authority, who during course of enquiry, issued a questionnaire to the appellant. However, detailed enquiry was conducted and the Investigating Officer submitted his Report on 25‑9‑1998. After the submission of report, on 1st May, 1999, a show‑cause notice was issued to appellant, which was duly replied by him. Thereafter, the then Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team, on giving personal hearing to the appellant, recommended for awarding him major penalty of his dismissal from service, and initiation of action for the recovery of Government funds. The said recommendations were acted upon and the competent Authority i.e., the then Chief Minister, by means of Notification, dated 23rd October, 1999, directed dismissal of appellant from service, in addition to recovery of Rs.23,99,

842. Against the said Notification a departmental appeal was filed, which did not bear any result, as such, instant appeal has been filed. Service Appeal No. 16 of 2000 Appellant Ashfaq Ahmed during tenure of his service was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Gawadar, on the SDS Project. He was served with a charge‑sheet, alongwith Statement of Allegations dated 19‑12‑1997, issued by the then Chief Secretary, wherein it was alleged that during his posting as DFO, Gawadar, he committed acts of gross negligence and corruption. The said charge‑sheet was duly replied by him. Thereafter, another charge‑sheet, alongwith statement. of 'allegations, in elaboration, dated 16th March, 1998, was .served upon the appellant by the then Chief Minister. The said charge sheet was replied by him on 18‑5‑1998. In the meanwhile, Mr. Hafizur Rehman, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who served the appellant with a questionnaire, which was not answered to, by the appellant. However, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer and he submitted his report on. 25‑9‑1998. On the basis of said report, the appellant was served with show‑cause notice, dated 1st May, 1999. The same was replied by appellant on 17‑5‑1999. After receipt of reply, the then Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team, heard the appellant in person and recommended for awarding him major penalty of dismissal from service and initiation of action for the recovery of Government money. The said recommendations were acted upon and the competent Authority, i.e. the then Chief Minister, by means of Notification, dated 23rd October, 1999, directed dismissal of appellant from service in addition to recovery of Rs.1,61,09,

530. Against the said Notification, a departmental appeal was filed, which was not redressed as such, instant appeal has been filed. We have heard Messers Aslam Chishti and K.N. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tanoli, learned. Advocate‑General, for respondents. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, learned counsel contended that the dismissal order, passed‑by the competent Authority is not sustainable as the Enquiry Officer was not competent to hold enquiry, against appellant Dr. Zahoorul Haq, in view of the Balochistan Civil Servants (E&D) Rules. He further contended, that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants and the Enquiry Officer even did not visit the site, inasmuch as the enquiry conduced by: him is based on a Special Audit Report. Learned counsel also contended that the entire enquiry was based on a questionnaire, which is against E&D Rules. Learned Advocate‑General, while opposing .the appeal contended; that the enquiry has been held by the competent Officer, as the Enquiry Officer was senior to appellant. Zahoorul Haq, and further no such objection was ever raised before the Authorized Officer. He further pointed out that the Enquiry Report is based on the Special Audit Report, which was carried out at the site and same was also not rebutted by the appellants. Lastly, he contended that during course of enquiry, a questionnaire was served upon each and every appellant to clarify their position, but they failed to do so. We have minutely perused the record of case, with the assistance of learned counsel for parties. Adverting to the objection, regarding Authority of the Enquiry Officer, it may be noted that appellant Dr. Zahoorul Haq, being the Chief Conservator, was given Grade‑20 on officiating basis and the Enquiry Officer was senior in rank than him, therefore, this objection having no substance is overruled. It may be observed, that such objection was also not raised before the Authorized Officer, nor in the Representation made to the Government. The objection has been raised for the first time, therefore, the same is repelled. Coming' to the next contention of learned counsel with regard to the Enquiry Report, it has come on record, that the enquiry was initiated after receiving the. Special Audit Report, which was carried out at the site. The Inquiry Officer, while completing the inquiry, has given complete details of the Project and the amounts embezzled and has also fixed the liabilities of all the appellants. Inasmuch as, the details of the amount embezzled/mis appropriated/misused in each and every count, have been given. Page 29 of the Report speaks for itself, in which, the amounts embezzled on different counts i.e., violation of the Account Procedure, encashment of cheques by Senior Clerk without any lawful authority, Cash Books maintained by the hired retired Official, hiring of vague Contractors and paying them millions of rupees in cash, millions of plants fictitiously shows raised in Nurseries, excess charging on raising and maintenance of nursery Plants, excess charging on plantation, excess charging on re‑plantation,' machinery and equipments etc., have been detailed. Besides the Enquiry Officer has even taken pains, while describing the role of each and every appellants and at page 36 of the Report, details and the duties of each and every Officer has ` been explained, and also the manner in which, they failed to carry out their duties. The Enquiry Officer has also given causes for .the failure of the Project. The main cause was, that accounts were maintained at National Branch, Quetta, instead of Gawadar, and it has come on record that there is also a Branch of National Bank at Gawadar, but deliberately the account was opened at Quetta and the cash amounts were withdrawn by the Senior Clerk. The other causes shown for the failure of the Project, were the appointment of inappropriate and insufficient staff, and the equipments meant for the Project were utilized at Quetta, instead being used at the site. i.e., Vehicles, Tractors, Computers etc., and even the persons required for operating the same, were not employed and the said amount was embezzled. The charge‑sheets served upon the appellants clearly specify the charges against them and instead of giving proper replies, vague objections were raised. The appellants have failed to show on record, that the amounts were not misappropriated or excess billings were not made. It may be observed that the Project was meant for plantation on five thousand hectares of land but instead not ever 750 hectares of land was brought under cultivation. On the contrary, billings were made for much larger land and the appellants have failed to show, that the amounts were properly spent on the Project. It has come on record, that each appellant was given personal hearing by the Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team, but they could not rebut the charge. The contention of learned Advocate‑General has substance, that the learned counsel for the appellants have argued the matter on technical grounds and have only raised technical objections and as far as the merits of the case are concerned, i.e., allegations against the appellants, nothing has been brought on record, to show, that the appellants have not misappropriated the amounts. As observed hereinabove the Inquiry Officer has given details of the responsibilities and the amounts embezzled by each and every appellants, which appellants have failed to rebut. We are not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for appellants, that the Inquiry Report is based on a Special Audit Report. It may be mentioned here that after receiving the Audit Report, the enquiry was started. The appellants were duly charge‑sheeted, statements of allegation were served upon them and inasmuch as after providing them personal hearing the then Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team, recommended for awarding them major penalties. Therefore, it can be safely held that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law and the allegations were proved against them beyond any shadow of doubt. The appellants were responsible for the failure of SDS Project, on which, about 80 million rupees were spent, but the object could not be achieved, as the entire Project failed. Even the report, submitted by the officials of the World Bank, in itself is a proof of the corruption and mishandling of the Project by the appellants. It may be observed that first charge‑sheet was issued to appellants on 19th December, 1997 and thereafter to make it more specific another charge‑sheet alognwith statement of allegations was issued to them on 16th March, 1998, to which they replied. After receiving their replies, Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry during course whereof. Questionnaire was also put to appellants and on completion of enquiry, show‑cause notice was issued to each and every appellant, which was also replied by them. Thereafter, personal hearing was given to each and every appellants by the Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team, but they could not prove their innocence. Thus, was are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that no opportunity of hearing was given to appellant. In our considered opinion, no mandatory provision of the E&D Rules had been violted during the proceeding and the appellants were given full opportunity to place their defence. It may be observed that even before the Tribunal, learned counsel could not give satisfactory reply, regarding the failure of the Project, for which all the appellants were personally anti collectively responsible. In view of the above discussion, we see no substance in the appeals, which are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs: Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed, that SDS was a joint Project of World Bank and the Government of Balochistan have investment shares of 80% and 20% respectively. The amount which was provided by the World Bank was a Long Term Loan and was to be repaid. The appellants have not only embezzled the amount, but had also brought a bad name and ill‑repute to the country, therefore, it is‑a fit case, to be referred to the Provincial Accountability Bureau, Quetta. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Provincial Accountability Bureau, Quetta for information and action. H.B.T./2/Q(Sr.Trib) Appeals dismissed/Order accordingly.