1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER):-Muhammad Zohrab, appellant, was a Forester serving at Lower Topa Murree in the Timber Extraction Division, Rawalpindi when on 28-3-1985 the Divisional Forest Officer/respondent No. 2 placed him under suspension on the charge of absence from duty from 8-3-1985 to 28-3-1985. He was served with a show-cause notice to which the appellant claims to have submitted his defence within the stipulated time. However, the appellant was dismissed from service by respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 7-5-1985 on the grounds that the appellant had neither submitted his reply to the show-cause notice nor did he appear before him for personal hearing. The appeal filed by the appellant before the appellate authority i.e. the Conservator of Forests/respondent No.1 was also rejected through the latter's order dated 6-8-1985. The appellant has impugned the aforesaid two orders dated 7-5-1985 and 6-8-1985 against which this appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. We have heard the parties and have also gone through the relevant record produced before the Tribunal. We find that during the course of departmental proceedings no documentary evidence such as the roll call register was produced to prove that the appellant had remained absent from duty during the period 8-3-1985 to 28-3-1985. The case was decided on the basis of a single note dated 27-3-1985 wherein the Range Officer, Raja Muhammad Nazir had reported the appellant's absence to the higher authorities. According to the parawise comments/report submitted by both the respondents there was no roll call register either maintained by the Range Officer or the Forester where attendance could be marked. The very fact that the Range Officer instead of filing the report immediately took 20 days to report the appellant's alleged absence raises the suspicion that the report could have been fabricated due to some personal grudge which the Range Officer might have developed against the appellant. Both the respondents have acknowledged that the two officials had some differences. Thus the suspicion that the departmental proceedings against the appellant might have been initiated through malice cannot be ruled out. Another important factor which lends credence to the suspicion of malice is the fact that the appellant had earlier applied on 3-8-1983 for retirement as he had completed more than 26 years of qualifying service for pension. At that point of time too the appellant was serving under Raja Muhammad Nazir who, while forwarding the appellant's application for retirement, did not recommend it and had observed that "the appellant was an experienced hand and also true to his duty so his L.P.R., if accepted, it would be a loss". The insistence of the appellant for his retirement might have infuriated the Range Officer and turned him against his subordinate. One fails to comprehend how a person who was `true to his duty' became a truant and a delinquent in less than 20 months and that too at the fag end of his service career. Even if we ignore the possibility of malice, which at any rate is only a suspicion, dismissal from service of an official who had 28 years service to his credit; against whom no documentary evidence was produced during the departmental proceedings which were concluded ex parte and who himself was not willing to continue in service and had applied for retirement, is too harsh a punishment. For all these reasons and taking a compassionate view of the attending circumstances we hereby modify the impugned orders dated 7-5-1985 and 6-8-1985 to the extent that the punishment of dismissal from service is changed to compulsory retirement. As already decided by respondent No. 2 in his aforesaid order of 7-5-1985, the period of suspension will be treated as leave without pay. The appellant would, however, be entitled to the usual subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. With the above directions the appeal stands disposed of. There are no orders as to costs. M.Y.H./309/Sr. P Appeal partly allowed.