1984 PLP (C (PLC)

Mian Bashir Ahmad Ex‑Field Assistant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Extra‑Assistant Director, Agriculture, Faisalabad and the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 20th February, 1983 passed by the respondent No. 1 and 19th June, 1982, passed by the respondent No. 2 be set aside being illegal and unjustified.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by the Extra‑Assistant Director of Agriculture, Faisal abad on 28th May, 1981, alleging shortage of pesticide (28 litre Endrine) and tempering with the office record with ulterior motive. Another show- cause notice was served upon the appellant by the same authority dated 11th July, 1981, alleging misappropriation/corruption of Rs. 4,989.78 on account costs of pesticides/insection. Yet another show‑cause notice was served upon him on 8th March, 1982 by the same authority, alleging misappropriation/corruption of articles amounting to Rs. 707.68. An Enquiry Officer i.e. Muhammad Yousaf, Sindhu, Agriculture Officer, Garb, was also appointed by the Authority to probe into the matter vide his order dated 12th April, 1982. However, later on the Authority appoin ted Ch. Khuda Dad, Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Faisalabad to act as Authorised Officer vide his office order dated 6th October, 1982. The Authorised officer proceeded against the appellant in the matter and dispensed with the formal enquiry, completed his recommendations and submitted the same to the Authority. The Authority i.e. respondent No. 1, after consideration of the report of the Authorised Officer vide his order, dated 20th February, 1983, dismissed the appellant from service with immediate effect and ordered the recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,433.85 on account of cost of pesticides/Agriculture Books, misappro priated by the appellant and also absence period from 3rd May, 1982 onward to be treated not spent on duty. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, which was rejected vide his order, dated 19th June, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e. the appellant who was present in person and the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There was actually no shortage of pesticide/insecticide etc., alleged against him. He has been made a scapegoat by the Department. He has vehemently resisted that no tempering of the record was done by him. He has also pointed out that no enquiry was held and he has not been afforded an opportunity to produce his witnesses or defence in this case. An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Authority. He bad asked the Authority for changing of the Enquiry Officer. Later on neither the Enquiry Officer was changed nor an enquiry was held against him to probe into the matter and thus, he was not given due opportunities to defend himself. He has also submitted that he was also not heard in person by the Authority before passing the impugned order of his dis missal. This order was passed unlawfully, without proving the charges and his guilt, as he has been pleading in writing before the authority that he was not at all responsible for the so alleged allegations against him. He has also clarified that he had taken a plea before the appellate authority also i.e. the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Faisalabad, that the Authority had not observed the formalities so required under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules but his request was ignored as is clear from the para. 2 of the appellate order of the respondent No. 2, dated 19th June, 1983. It has been prayed by the appellant that the impugned orders are not correct, unlawful and be quashed.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the impugned orders and the record shows that the appellant is responsible for the misappropriation of pesticides/insecticide etc. the allegations were proved against the appellant and he has been punished correctly. He was afforded the necessary opportunities of personal hearing by the Authorised officer as well as by the Authority but he failed to avail the same. Hence, there is no truth in the arguments of the appellant that he was not afforded the opportunities to defending himself. The learned District Attorney has submitted that the impugned orders are well‑considered, detailed orders and no exception can be taken against these.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties acid have also consulted the record in this case. It is clear from the record of this case that the appellant was proceeded on the allegations of misappropriation, corruption, tempering of the record and absence from duty. The perusal of the impugned order, dated 20th February, 1983 of the Authority, shows that it was decided by the Authorised Officer that a formal enquiry in the case was not necessary. It is, thus, clear that no regular enquiry was held and the appellant was not given an opportunity to produce the witnesses or defence to defend himself. This Tribunal has already held relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1980 P L C (C. S.) 418, 1980 P L C (C. S.) 611, 1980 P L C (C. S.) 562 and P L D 1974 S C 393 that in cases involving charges of `Corruption' it is incumbent for the competent authority to hold a regular enquiry. Since, the provision of the Rules has not been complied in this case by holding a regular enquiry, hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

8. In this case I also find that the appellant was not heard in person before deciding the case by the Authority. The Authority has taken the plea that the notice of personal hearing was sent to the appellant through Extra‑Assistant Director, Agriculture, Gujrat. District Gujrat for appearing before him on 22nd January, 1983, but he failed to avail the opportunity. On the other hand the contention of the appellant is that he did not receive this notice. Under the circumstances I feel that the appellant should have been afforded another opportunity of personal hearing to put up his defence. I consider that the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant from service by the Authority i.e., Extra‑Assistant Director, Agriculture, Faisalabad has been passed in haste. It is also worth‑mentioning that the appellant had taken the same plea before the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad but his request was not paid attention, as is clear from the para. 2 of his order, dated 19th June, 1983, which is reproduced as below :‑ "The plea taken by the appellant that the Extra‑Assistant Director of Agriculture, Faisalabad, had not observed the formalities required under the rules is totally wrong, because all requirements of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 were observed by the Authority."

9. The upshot of the above analysis is that the case is remanded to the `Authority' i.e., the Extra Assistant Director, Agriculture, Faisalabad, to proceed afresh in this case in accordance with the observations so made above and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant is re‑instated into service with immediate effect to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant for proceeding against him by the 'Authority'. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the Authority after conducting the proceedings afresh under the law, as mentioned above. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal accepted. Case remanded.