1983SCMR633 (PLP)

Date of hearing : 2nd June, 1982. S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑This appeal by special leave has been brought to challenge the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 6th January, 1980, which was passed in the background of the following facts :‑‑

2. The appellant joined service as Patwari in the year 1944 and after being promoted, as Kanungo in 1958‑59 was posted in village Nangal Machhana, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot in 1964‑65. ‑ He was charge‑sheeted on 8th December, 1975 by the Settlement Officer/Collector on as many as, eight charges. The Settlement Tehsildar, Sialkot was appointed as Enquiry Officer who, as per his report dated 2nd June, 1977, found that only charges 4, 5 and 6, were proved against the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice dated 18th August, 1977 calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be removed from service. The appellant furnished his reply to the said show‑cause notice. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sialkot, after hearing the appellant and considering the report of the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved and dismissed the appellant from service by his order dated 17th August, 1978.

3. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, which was dismissed on 18th August, 1979. He there after filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore which was dismissed in limine on 6th January, 1980. The learned Tribunal held that the charge No. 5 was not conclusively proved: the charge No. 6 has been established against the appellant from the record and in view of the finding recorded against charge No. 5, it was not neces sary to consider the charge No. 4.

4. Leave to appeal was granted on 30th November, 1980 on a short ground to examine the question whether a copy of the enquiry report should have been supplied to the appellant or not, because it was contended that in the absence of the same the appellant was prejudiced in preparing his defence and showing cause against the punishment sought to be imposed on him.

5. Mr. A. R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that mere service of show‑cause notice without a certified copy of the, enquiry report was of no legal effect and in any case it had caused material prejudice to the appellant who was seriously handicapped the preparation of his defence against the charges enumerated in the show‑cause notice. He attempted to argue on facts but had to restrict his submissions within the limited scope of the leave granting order. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that this ground was not available to the appellant as the same was factually incorrect. He referred to the proceedings of the case and invited our attention to the order‑sheet dated 27th July, 1977 to show that the Collector had directed for the issuance of a show‑cause notice to the appellant together with the enquiry report. The case thereafter was adjourned for hearing on as many as 15 dates and from the case diary it was nowhere indicated that the appellant had made any grievance that a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to him. He had duly furnished a reply to the show‑cause notice, taken adjournment and was heard in the matter.

6. The proceedings of the case has been examined by us which confirm the above statement of the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the clear order of the Collector dated 27th July, 1977, referred to above, it must be presumed that the same was duly complied with and a copy of the enquiry report was made available to the appellant. This assertion is supported by the case diary of the proceedings before the Collector before whom no such objection was taken by the appellant. This being the position of the record, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that he was not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report.

7. The appeal, in the circumstances, must fail and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.