1990 PLP 810 (SCMR)

Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1989., . SAAD SAOOD JAN, J‑‑The petitioner was a Forest Guard in charge of Chinga Beat in the Pabbi Forest Range. On the allegations that he had allowed illegal grazing in his Beat after charging grazing fee and had failed to report the full extent of damage caused to the trees in his Beat, disciplinary prceedings were taken against him and he was removed from service. He preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was allowed on the ground that the officer who had made the order of removal was not competent to do so. Consequently, he was reinstated in service and fresh disciplinary proceedings on the same charges were started against him. The Conservator of Forest, Range Management Circle, Lahore, was appointed as the authorised officer. He decided to dispense with the regular inquiry and served a show cause notice upon the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner and examining the record he found the petitioner guilty of involvement and connivance in illicit grazing and damage to the trees falling in his Beat; accordingly, he recommended his dismissal from service. The Chief Conservator of Forests who was the Authority in the case heard the petitioner and accepted the recommendation of the authorised officer. Accordingly, he made an order dismissing the petitioner from service. After availing of the departmental remedy which remained unsuccessful the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. This too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. In support of this petition two contentions have been raised namely: (1) It was not open to the authorised officer to dispense with a regular inquiry after a charge sheet had been served upon the petitioner. (2) It was a case where a full‑fledged inquiry could not have been dispensed with. Both these contentions are without any merit. Under Rule 6(2) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the authorised officer has the option whether in the light of the facts of a case or in the interest of justice he should hold a regular inquiry into the allegations made against a civil servant. No doubt it was held by this Court in Ghulam Hadi Baloch v. Collector of Customs 1987 S C M R 602 that if once the authorised officer has exercised his option he cannot subsequently change it. But in the petition before us the earlier proceedings in which that option was exercised were set aside by the Tribunal on an appeal preferred by the petitioner himself. Thus, in the second disciplinary proceedings the authorised officer was entitled to exercise his option afresh. It cannot therefore be said that he acted illegally when he decided to dispense with the requirement of an inquiry. We are also not impressed by the contention that this was a case where a full‑fledged inquiry should have been held. There were inspection notes of officers far senior to the petitioner who had visited the Beat of the petitioner and noticed evidence of illicit grazing in the form of the dropping of the animals and damage to the trees. These officers had no motive whatsoever to make false accusations against the petitioner. If in the circumstances the', authorised officer chose not to hold a full‑fledged inquiry, he could not be said to have acted arbitrarily. This petition is without any merit which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A‑646/S Leave refused.