2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).

The appellant, while working as Medical Officer, Basic Health Unit (B.H.U.), 560/GB District Faisalabad, was proceeded against under P.R.S.O. 2000 on the allegation that he was found absent from duty from 22-11-2004 and was also reported to be miming a private clinic at Feroze Wattooan in District Sheikhupura. The appellant was considered guilty of misconduct. The authority decided to dispense with regular inquiry as per show cause notice dated 15-3-2005 served upon the appellant. The appellant submitted his explanation against the charges pointing out that he had rendered service for about 17 years in the department and had been working day and night for the betterment of the ill and the poor community in rural area. The appellant also explained that complaint against him filed by any quarter regarding absence was baseless because attendance register of B.H.U. was there and that register contained his signatures. Similarly, he had been regularly signing various bills and reports. In short, the appellant stated that as the fact of his regular official activities as doctor in the B.H.U., was proved from documentary evidence, the allegation of wilful absence was baseless. As regards the allegation of running private clinic, the "appellant submitted before the authority that he was at liberty to do private practice in the evening being a doctor, but the allegation that he was running the clinic all the time during the day, was baseless. Reply submitted by the appellant against the charges was not considered satisfactory and through impugned orders dated 7-5-2005 the appellant was removed from service. The appellant filed departmental appeal. However, the same was rejected through impugned orders dated 18-10-2005 hence present appeal in this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case at length. It is stated that in the first place, there was no complaint against the appellant from any member of local public and that an N.G.O. called Punjab Rural Support Program (P.R.S.P.) had due to its own vested interests, reported against the appellant whereas the said N.G.O. had no locus standi to file a complaint against the appellant when the appellant was working under the Health Department as regular medical doctor. It is further stated that allegations were also baseless, moreover, allegations were non-specific and vague as no period of absence was mentioned in the show-cause notice. It is also pointed out that attendance register of B.H.U. was available and according to that register, the appellant had been performing his duties regularly during November, 2004 and thereafter. He had been signing bills and other official documents on daily basis. It is next pointed out that the allegation that the appellant was running a private clinic, was also unwarranted because the appellant was not living in the quarter provided at B1-lU since the same was in shambles and not worth living and th' appellant could not be forced to occupy that quarter. It is pointed out that as Medical Officer, the appellant had the right to do private medical practice at his residence as the village of the appellant was not far from the village where the appellant was posted as Medical Officer. Learned counsel has also questioned the vires of any report from P.R.S.P. on the ground that appellant was never informed that the N.G.O./P.R.S.P. was to supervise the work and conduct of the appellant. It is further stated that regular inquiry should have been held when the appellant had denied the allegations on the basis of documentary evidences, but this was not done and the appellant was removed from service out of mala fide on a baseless and frivolous report from an N.G.O.

3. Respondents have opposed the appeal. It is the contention of the respondents that P.R.S.P. had been fully authorized to check all B.H.Us. off and on and to report to the department if any medical officer was not attending his duties regularly. It is maintained that the appellant was found absent when he was checked on 22-11-2004 and that the appellant was reportedly running private clinic illegally while he was supposed to occupy the residential quarter provided for him at the BHU. It is finally stated that the orders had been passed by the authority after confirmation of all ,relevant facts about irresponsible and delinquent attitude of the appellant, in accordance with law.

4. I have considered averments from both sides in juxtaposition and also gone through the relevant record as made available. The fact was not denied by the respondents that regular inquiry was not held in this case whereas allegations had been denied by the appellant. Denial of allegations and production of record of attendance at BHU by the appellant warranted initiation of a regular inquiry. I, therefore, find that no reasonable justification is furnished by the respondents for dispensing with regular inquiry in this case. I have seen the attendance register. This register does contain the signatures of the appellant on various dates in the month of November 2004 and in subsequent months. D.R., in the course of arguments took the position that the appellant used to put his signatures/initials in the register when he would visit BHU after certain intervals. However, the D.R. failed to substantiate his statement through any positive material evidence. On the other hand, apparently the appellant had been performing normal duties and signing various bills on various dates. Show-Cause notices served to the appellant does not indicate the exact period of alleged absence of the appellant. The respondents have also not been able to show as to how P.R.S.P. was competent under the law to recommend action against the appellant when the appointing authority in the case of the appellant happened to be the Health Department. Moreover, apparently there was no complaint from the public of the area against the appellant on record. As regards running of private clinic, I find that the appellant as medical officer may be entitled to do private practice as a doctor in the evening at his residence if he was not occupying the Government quarter and was not receiving any non-parctsing allowance. There was no allegations against the appellant that he was not living in the quarter at BHU inspite of any directions given to him. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, appeal is accepted and case is remanded for fresh proceedings on specific allegations including regular inquiry. The appellant shall stand reinstated to face fresh proceedings and period intervening shall be decided by the competent authority at its discretion depending on the outcome of fresh proceedings. H.B.T./41/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.