1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER). --Farzand Ali ex-Forest Guard, Bahawalpur, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary, Forestry, Wild Life and Fisheries, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and Chief Conservator of Forest, Southern Zone, Multan, as respondents.

2. The appellant Farzand Ali prayed that the impugned order of tote dismissal be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in the service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Farzand Ali was charge-sheeted on multiple counts and the departmental inquiry was conducted. As a result of inquiry the appellant Farzand Ali was dismissed from the service by order, dated 13-8-1984. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a departmental appeal which was rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant

4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was issued show-cause notice for 35 trees which were in the beat of the appellant, which the appellant had accounted for. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the Inquiry Officer has awarded penalty of stoppage of promotion for 3 years on account of his general inefficiency but the Chief Conservator of Forest inflicted penalty of dismissal from the service. In addition to, that the damage of 41 trees was shown instead of

35. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded that the appellant was responsible only for the 35 trees and the remaining 6 trees were out of his beat. The appeal was rejected by the Secretary of the Government and, therefore, the appellant resorted to the present appeal. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated on strength of the inquiry report as well as the departmental comments that the misconduct and guilt of the appellant was fully established. The learned District Attorney added that previously the appellant was issued warning on 2-6-1970 followed by warning, dated 6-5-1976 regarding negligence in performance of duties as well as failure in carrying out the enumeration of trees. Again appellant's increment was stopped on 13-11-1976 for misconduct. Beside that on 30-8-1984 recovery of Rs.360 and stoppage of one annual increment was awarded against the appellant. The learned District Attorney further stated that in the instant case the appellant was charge-sheeted, regular inquiry was conducted and show-cause notice was issued on ground of misconduct on the part of the appellant for high-scaled damage to the trees in his beat etc. The appellant was given full chance to defend himself but failed and accordingly he was dismissed from the service. The learned District Attorney while concluding the arguments stated that the Inquiry Officer was no authority to propose or inflict any penalty and it is only for the authorized officer to inflict a minor penalty and the authority to inflict a major penalty. The penalty could not be reduced merely because the compensation of the trees was recovered. The offence and the guilt yet remained in the field. Damage report was also produced by the learned District Attorney.

5. We have carefully considered the points so raised by both the parties and we have also perused the relevant record including the departmental comments and the damage report. We are of considered opinion that the appellant was given full chance to defend but the appellant failed. The Inquiry Officer has established the charges against the appellant and the authority rightly punished the appellant. Neither the appellant alleged or proved any malice against the Inquiry Officer and the authority nor there is any reason to disbelieve their impartially. ???????????????????????

6. Hence there seems to be no reason to interfere with them impugned order and the recovery of the money cannot preclude the imposition of I major penalty. Any more recovery of his stolen property can justify leniency to the culprit or a thief. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

7. There will be no order as to costs. A. A.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.