2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).

With this judgment we shall decide Appeals Nos.1141 to 1146(L) of 1999. All these appeals have been filed by Muhammad Yousaf who was a Line Superintendent in the service of WAPDA.

2. Appeals Nos.1141, 1142, 1143, 1145 and 1146(L) of 1999 are filed against Office Orders Nos.433, 430, 428, 429 and 432 dated 31-5-1999 by which the appellant was removed from service on different charges. Appeal No.1144(L) of 1999 has been filed against Office Order No.431 dated 31-5-1999 by which the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,01,905.

3. The charges on which the appellant was removed from service related to making fictitious/bogus recording of units to decrease line losses, forging of record, negligence in maintaining 11-KV line resulting into death of two persons who were members of a marriage party, their bus having struck a branch of 11-KV line on 12-4-1996, disobeying lawful orders, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from the residents of village Dhar, unlawful removal of transformer and its installation at the tubewell of one Mst. Ameena Bibi etc. The penalty of recovery of Rs.1,01,905 was awarded to the appellant as during the audit it had been found that he had withdrawn material from the store but for that he had not produced the relevant record for inspection.

4. In all the appeals the grounds taken by the appellant are that no regular inquiry was held against him in spite of gravity of charges levelled against him and that the was condemned unheard.

5. The respondents have resisted all the appeals. It is stated that the appellant had a very 'boor record of service and for that a number of disciplinary actions were taken against him. According to the respondents the appellant was involved in more than 20 cases and was giving bad name to a national institution.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7. It is correct that charges of grievous nature were levelled against the appellant and no inquiry was held against him but we find that it was due to the conduct of the appellant that no such inquiry was needed. In spite of repeated notices and service of explanation letters to him he did not care to submit his reply. He did not even appear for personal hearing. Several notices were issued to him by the respondents to present his defence but he failed to do so. When an employee intentionally fails to furnish his defence he is not entitled to plead innocence. Failure to deny charges means tacit admission of the charges. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was never served with any explanation letter or with any show-cause notice. We are not prepared to accept this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is overwhelming documentary evidence on record to show that the explanation letters and show-cause notices had been sent to the appellant. He had also been served with notices for personal hearing. Official acts are deemed to have been properly performed. There was no reason for the respondents to fabricate record against the appellant. From this record it is established that the appellant was sent charge-sheet and show-cause notices. It was he who had not joined the departmental proceedings on his own. His non-participation in the departmental proceedings was intentional. He has, therefore, no right to claim that regular inquiries should have been held against him.

8. We have before us 1995 SCMR 1754. It is held in this authority that a Civil Servant's wilful omission to respond to charge sheet justifies his dismissal from service by the Competent Authority. A similar view had been expressed by the apex Court in 1994 SCMR

381. It was observed by the apex Court that when the record showed that the Civil Servant was aware of the allegations but he did not controvert the same he could not request for interference by the Courts. In the present case also we are convinced that the appellant was in knowledge of all the explanation letters and the allegations levelled against him. He wilfully abstained from controverting these allegations. He is, therefore, precluded from claiming in the present appeals that the allegations against him were false.

9. Article 49 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 clearly says that an entry in the public record made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty is in itself a relevant fact. Article 90 of this law further provides that such a document would be presumed to be genuine. Article 92 is also very relevant. It says that the Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. The explanation letters and the show-cause notices, were prepared in accordance with WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. They were prepared by the Competent Authority and were also issued by the same Authority. These documents were produced on the record of the present appeals in a lawful manner. It was thus for the appellant to rebut with substantial evidence that he had never received these documents or that he had no knowledge of these documents. We are not prepared to believe his oral submission, not substantiated by any document, that he was not served with charge sheets/explanation letters and show-cause notices. In the circumstances we reject this argument of the appellant that he had been condemned unheard. He was given every opportunity to defend himself but he voluntarily refrained from doing so.

10. For the above reasons we find no merit in the appeals. By failing to controvert the allegations levelled against him the appellant had in fact admitted these allegations. He was, therefore, awarded penalties, impugned in the present appeals, in accordance with law. There being no merit in the appeals the same are hereby dismissed.

11. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./112/FST Appeal dismissed.