1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Hanif has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Director- General (L.. G. & R. D.) Government of the Punjab, Lahore and Director Administration (L. G. & R. D.) Government of the Punjab, Lahore.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order dated 25th October, 1982 communicated to the appellant on 16th November, 1982 and order of respondent No. 2 for awarding punish ment on 31st March, 1982, be set aside and appeal of the appellant be accepted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted on 31st October, 1981, by the Director (Admn.), Directorate‑General (L. G. & R. D.), Punjab, Lahore as an "Authorized Officer". The appellant submitted a reply to the charge‑sheet on 11th October, 1981. The authorized Officer appointed Mr. S. M. Yusaf, Assistant Director (B. & A.) as Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the matter. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the "authorized Officer" afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant on 15th March, 1982. The appellant was found guilty of misconduct. His two annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect, vide Director (Adminis tration) order dated 31st March. 1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Director‑General, (L. G. & R. D.) Government of the Punjab, Lahore which was rejected, vide his order dated 25th October, 1982/J6th November, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was charge‑sheeted for commit ting three irregularities. Irregularities Nos. 2 and .3 could not be proved against the appellant and he was held responsible by the Enquiry Officer only for the irregularity No. 1. 1t has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in defence of this alleged irregu larity No. 1, the appellant contented time and again that he had proceed ed to Muridke on 16th September, 1981 to convey the verbal directions of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Malik, Director Programmes, to Mr. Qamar uz‑Zaman Ahmad Dar. Proprietor, Dar Goods Transport Co., Lahore. Such verbal orders or directions were given on several occasions, in this matter, even in the presence of Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Bhatti, A. D. (P. l.). Thus, the appellant had not gone to the house of the contractor of his own, as alleged, but was in compliance of the directions of Director Programme. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Enquiry Officer, did not confront the appellant with the above‑mentioned two officers and he was not afforded opportunities to cross question them to prove his innocence. Thus, the enquiry report is defective and slipshod. Concluding his arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished in haste, without proving the allegation against him.

5. Rebutting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the enquiry report makes it clear that the Enquiry Officer, consulted Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Malik and Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Bhatti, in writing who did not confirm this version and stand of the appellant. Thus, the appellant, has been correctly held guilty of misconduct and punishment awarded to him is just and lawful.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties. I have also carefully consulted the record of this case as well.

7. The only charge established (charge No. 1 in the charge‑sheet) against the appellant is that he was standing outside the house of the contractor (Mr. Dar) as found by the raiding party. The contractor came out from his house to see him. The appellant handed over some papers to the contractor and these papers were sent inside the house by Mr. Dar, before his arrest. This charge was substantiated by charge No. 2 of the charge‑sheet which reads as follows :‑ "It was presumed that besides handing over one paper on 16th September, 1981 and informing Mr. Dar about the legal proceedings being initiated against him, you had constantly been providing copies of office record to him." The Enquiry Officer has not held the appellant responsible for charge No.

2. Thus the charge that the appellant handed over the papers to the contractor has not been substantiated and proved against the appel lant. The perusal of the reply submitted to the charge‑sheet by the appel lant makes it clear that the appellant had taken a positive stand that he went to Muridke on 16th September, 1981 to convey the verbal directives given by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Malik, Director Programme to the contractor: He had also submitted that verbal orders on several occa sions in this matter were given by the Director Programme, even in the presence of Muhammad Yaqub Bhatti, A. D. (P. I) when the enquiry was taken up against the appellant by the Enquiry Officer, the appellant had requested the Enquiry Officer that Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Malik, Director Programme be summoned as a witness so that he could cross- question him (Annexure 'D' of the appeal). Similar stand was taken by' the appellant when the matter was enquired into by the Enquiry Officer and the statement of the appellant was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to call Mr.f Muhammad Ashraf Malik, Director Programme, and Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Bhatti, A. D. (P. I) to provide an opportunity to the appellant to cross question them to prove his innocence. The Enquiry Officer did not do so. The Enquiry Officer has only relied on the written replies of these', officers as mentioned by him in his enquiry report, against charge No.

1. Thus, Enquiry officer, has failed to do the justice and find out the truth in the matter. It can be safely concluded that the enquiry report is in complete and slipshod.

8. Keeping the above analysis in view the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority for conducting the enquiry de novo, where the appellant be allowed an opportunity to defend himself by allowing him to cross ques tion the chief prosecution witnesses i.e. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Malik, Director Programme and Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Bhatti, A. D. (P. I), so that no injustice is done to the appellant. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal accepted. Case remanded.