1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN)

M/s. Muhammad Arshad, Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Ilyas, ex-Clerks of Deputy Commissioner's Office, Sheikhupura, have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the orders dated 18-6-1986 and 30-6-1987, passed by the respondents, whereby the appellants were dismissed from service on the charges of misconduct, negligence, misappropriation and causing loss to Government ex-Chequer. The appellants have impleaded the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, as respondents. Through these appeals the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be set aside.

2. Since all the three appeals contain identical facts as well as similar law point therefore, these are disposed of by our this single judgment.

3. The salient features briefly are that the appellants had been working as Wasil Baqi Navis, Tehsil Nankana during the year 1983-84. An amount of Rs.17,34,112.97 was detected to be allegedly embezzled by them in connivance with Lambardar during their respective tenure of posting. Criminal cases were also registered against them. The authority on the receipt of detailed report of the Authorised Officer, dismissed all the three appellants from service after holding them guilty of the charges. On appeal the respondent No. 1, by his order dated 30-6-1987, upheld the order of respondent No. 2, dated 18-6-1980.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney and perused the record of this case with care with the assistance of the Departmental representative.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the procedure laid down under sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, has been violated and the impugned orders passed by the respondents are illegal and ultra vires. Conversely the learned District Attorney has opposed the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that all the appellants were afforded personal hearing and the provisions laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, have been fully complied with. He prayed that the impugned orders be maintained as the appellants were rightly punished on the charge of gross misconduct.

6. We have given .our anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. We have also perused the record of this case and find that the prescribed procedure laid down in rule 6(4) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, has not been followed by respondent No. 2, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable being inconsistent with law and rules laid down for the purpose. 7. 1n the light of the above discussion the appeals are allowed to the extent that the impugned orders are set aside and cases remanded to the authority to proceed against the appellants strictly in accordance with provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The appellants are directed to appear before the Authority viz. respondent No.

2. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./268/Sr. P Case remanded.