1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant preferred the present appeal against the order dated 31-3-19813 vide which he was dismissed from service by respondent No. 2 and his appeal was rejected by respondent No.3 on 27-11-1988. According to him a charge-sheet was issued by respondent No.1 on 27-8-1987 against him for illicit damage of 36 trees, corruption, inefficiency and misconduct to which he submitted the reply on 5-9-1987. Respondent No.1 was appointed as an Authorised Officer who conducted enquiry against him and respondent No.2 on the basis of the same dismissed the appellant from service vide impugned order dated 31-3-1988. The appellant filed an appeal on 27-4-1988 to respondent No.3 but the same was dismissed by him; hence the present appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds that respondents did not follow the procedure embodied in the N.W.F.P. (E&D Rules), 1973. The job of Authorised Officer an Enquiry Officer is quite different and the duties and functions of both cannot be performed by a single person. The damage of the forest was before his taking over the charge and only 16 trees were damaged for which he submitted the damage report. His co-accused Shah Hussain Forestor was given the minor punishment while he was severely dealt with by dismissing him from service and without taking into consideration his long and unblemished service. Respondents denied the allegations by filing the written statement and challenged the averments. Record perused and the arguments heard in the light of which, the case is decided as under: Learned counsel for the appellant argued that authority in the instant case was respondent No.2 who appointed respondent No.1 as the Authorised Officer whose job was of serving upon the appellant the charge-sheet and the summary of allegations and then to remit the same to some other person as an Enquiry Officer. It was not done in the instant case and the A.O. took upon. himself the job of the Enquiry Officer. However he did not ask the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses, to go through the record relied upon by respondent No.1. He was also not given the copy of the report. On the other hand learned Special Govt. Pleader argued that appellant committed misconduct and due to his negligence/corruption, the department suffered huge loss. Respondents adopted the procedure contained in the rules. We have given out patient hearing to the arguments advanced by both the sides and have perused the record. The Special Govt. Pleader was asked by us to show any statement of witness recorded by the Authorised Officer but he after thorough search of the record failed to produce the same. Even otherwise the Authorised Officer cannot go to the matter if he is of the opinion that accused official is to undergo major punishment, which was done in the present case. He relied on surmises and conjectures while encroaching upon the matter. It was the duty of the department to collector some material evidence before taking action against the appellant. Respondents failed to do so with the result that by accepting the present appeal, we set aside the impugned order and reinstate the appellant in service with all back benefits from the date he was dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. A.A./126/Sr.N. Appeal accepted.