1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(ii) You have been residing in the Committee Room of the office un‑authorisedly ever since your posting in the Directorate of Livestock Farms and have been charging House Rent and Conveyance Allowance from 22‑6‑1982 to 30‑6‑1983. During this period you also utilised Water, Sui Gas and Electricity without paying any charges. (iii) You did not render the complete account of sale proceeds of Farm Commodities such as Wheat/Milk/Beef/Animal, etc., sold by you in collaboration with Mr. Riazul Haque, at the Directorate of Livestock Farms during your tenure of posting in the Directorate of Livestock Farms, Punjab, Lahore and thus an amount of Rs.1,33,903 is outstanding against you. (iv) You are alleged to have recovered Land Rent from the Tenants of Livestock. Experiment Station, Khizerabad, but failed to deposit the same in the Receipt Head of the Farm and thus embezzled the amount. (2) And whereas the undersigned has decided that it is not necessary to have an inquiry conducted in proof thereof and whereas it is proposed to proceed against you under sub‑rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency s Discipline) Rules, 1975. (3) Now, therefore, you are hereby called upon to show‑cause in writing within fourteen days of the publication of this Notice as to why one or more of the major penalties as prescribed in Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, should not be imposed on you. (4) Your explanation (in duplicate) should reach the undersigned within the said period, failing which it shall be presumed that you have no defence to offer, and do not wish to be heard in person (5) In case you may desire to consult any record on which the aforesaid charges are based or is relevant to the aforesaid charges you may do so with prior arrangement with the undersigned within fourteen days of the publication of the Notice. Abdul Rahim, Director, Livestock Farms, Punjab, Lahore. AUTHORISED OFFICER." The appellant on return to Pakistan filed written statement, dated 29‑1‑1984 as a reply of show‑cause notice. The appellant regretted and pleaded that due to emergency he left the country without getting the leave sanctioned. As regards staying in the office and charging the house rent, the appellant stated that some other officers had also stayed preceding to him but no charges were claimed from them. The appellant further stated that there was no bar for him to charge the house rent. The appellant claimed that he had cleared the account of commodities and could further clarify the same. The appellant denied the recovery of the rent from the tenant of Livestock Experiment Station, Khizerabad. The appellant was issued final show‑cause notice by the Secretary Livestock, Government of Punjab, and after affording of opportunity of personal hearing, the services of the appellant were terminated. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a mercy petition and also approached the Minister of the Government and finally the Secretary Livestock, Government of the Punjab, rejected his mercy petition vide orders, dated 5‑8‑1985. Hence this appeal,

4. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that after return to Pakistan, the appellant was allowed to resume his duty, but very harsh view has been taken by the authority in case of the appellant who was guilty of absence for 6 months, compared to 10 years' absence in case of Zahid Beg. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment in this case as No. 580/531 of 1985. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that initially the proceedings under rule 6(3) were conducted, but subsequently some inquiries were conducted against the appellant and the same were treated as regular inquiries. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that in the show‑cause notice report of the Inquire Officer was mentioned, but no such report was given to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the appellant was justified to live in the Committee Room and charge the house rent because some other officers had done the same.

5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the resumption of duty by the appellant, did not cure the allegations of misconduct against the appellant, including the absence from duty without leave and proceeding out of country. The learned District Attorney explained the confusion regarding the mentioning of inquiry report in the show‑cause notice, dated 4‑12‑1984 for personal hearing of the appellant. The learned District Attorney added that the original show‑cause notice, dated 23‑10‑1983 was issued and published in the 'Pakistan Times', dated 5‑11‑1983 in which the proceedings under rule 6(3) of E & D Rules, 1975 were clearly mentioned. As such there was no question of conducting any regular inquiry of submission of any inquiry report. It was only a mistake that in the final show‑cause notice, dated 4‑12‑1984, inquiry report was mentioned in the opening para of the notice due to adoption of Government's proforma. Similarly the, fact finding report was received on 9‑12‑1984. Thus, there was no departure from the proceedings under rule 6(3) of E & D Rules, 1975. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments and stated that the appellant was not justified to live in the Committee Room without permission of any competent authority, which he has not shown at any stage and at the same time also charged the house rent.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney for respondent. We have also consulted the relevant record including departmental objection. We are of the considered opinion, that ignoring other allegations, regarding charging House Rent etc. against the appellant for arguments sake, without conceding, the allegation of absenting from duty w.e.f. 16‑7‑1983 and proceeding to Nigeria on a private Passport without permission of the Secretary Livestock, Government of the Punjab and N.O. C. of the Government, is established against the appellant as well as admitted by the appellant. The plea of the appellant that he had to leave the country abruptly on emergency is not justified, regardless of the fact that the so, called emergency has never been disclosed. On return from abroad, the appellant had to be allowed to resume his duty to clothe him with a status of civil servant, for conducting disciplinary proceedings against him, under Punjab Government E & D Rules, 1975. In case of the appellant he was specifically given to understand that his resumption of duty, was after wilful absence and the posting order was without prejudice to the final outcome of the wilful absence. The proceedings were properly conducted under Rule 6(3) of Punjab Government Servants, E & D Rules, 1975.

7. Hence there is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.