1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(ii) that according to the statement of Mst. Sajida Abid and Mst. Sabbi, as recorded by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate 1st Class; Chichawatni, under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 13-8-1982 he and Iqbal Hussain abducted both the unmarried girls in Car No. VR 4003 to Khanewal Railway Station alongwith his servant namely Khurshid on 25-6-1982. He and his servant came back to Chichawatni while Iqbal Hussain took both the girls to Karachi by train. They stayed there in a hotel where Iqbal Hussain raped Mst. Sajida Abid for three or four days and later on forcibly got her signatures on a Nikah Nama; (iii) that he also reached Karachi subsequently and took Mst. Sajida Abid to some house and raped her on the assurance that he would be helping her momentarily because Iqbal Hussain had run short of money; (iv) that according to the statement of Mst. Sabbi as recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Chichawatni, on 13-8-1982 she had been raped by Khurshid his personal servant and (v) that FIR. No. 275/82, dated 7-8-1982 under section 10/11, Zina Ordinance was lodged against Iqbal Hussain and him in Police Station Chichawatni. Appellant was required to submit his written defence before Mr. Muhammad Saeed Shami, Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal who was appointed as enquiry officer in this case. The enquiry officer after holding complete enquiry submitted his report dated 31-3-1984 to Commissioner, Multan Division who after hearing the appellant observed that the charge has been fully proved against him and recommended that the appellant be awarded major penalty of dismissal from service. Member (Revenue), Board of Revere, Punjab, Lahore (Authority) after hearing the appellant and going through the reply of the appellant awarded him the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 22-7-1984. The appellant preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 who rejected the same vide order dated 13-5-1985. Hence this appeal, I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record minutely with the assistance of the representative of the department with care. The impugned orders dated 22-7-1984 and 13-5-1985 have been vehemently assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant, mainly on the following grounds;-- (a) That no enquiry report was provided to the appellant as laid down in Mir Muhammad's case by the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as P L D 1981 S C, 1H.76. (b) That the appellant was not provided any opportunity according to the prescribed procedure laid down under Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. (c) That mandatory provisions as envisaged by law while conducting the proceedings have been violated. In support of the contentions advanced on behalf of appellant's counsel reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i)(1985 SCMR 1062,), (ii) (PLD 1981 SC 176,),(iii) 1981 PLC (C.S) 601, (iv) (1980 PLC (C.S.) 213.) Conversely learned District Attorney seriously opposed the abovementioned contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that impugned orders passed by the respondents are lawful and in order, as such may be allowed to be upheld. Reliance has been placed on 1989 SCMR

183. After going through the whole file, I have given my anxious thought to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and find that contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the 'appellant have been thoroughly dealt with by the respondents in their respective judgments. Learned counsel for the appellant had failed to pinpoint any discrepancy of law or of fact or violation of any rule in the impugned orders passed by respondents. On a careful perusal of the facts of this case I find that appellant was given full opportunity to defend him. Moreover the procedure prescribed by the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 was fully complied with during the course of proceedings conducted against the appellant. I do not find any material irregularity in the proceedings as such I find that impugned orders passed by respondents are unexceptionable either on facts or on law. Furthermore the charge for which the appellant was penalized by the respondent s stands fully proved against him on record and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut the same. I also find that appellant was dismissed from service on the charge of committing offence of moral turpitude. He committed such an act which has not only disgraced him in the society but has also brought bad name to the department. No doubt appellant was acquitted but the facts remains that case was registered against him and the same will not affect the outcome of departmental proceedings as the appellant was proceeded on merits. During the course of arguments appellant has failed to point out that why he was falsely involved in the case by the complainant who had no malice or personal annoyance against him. The appellant's act is so grave that he deserves no leniency. Viewed in the aforesaid context I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders so passed by the respondents. Resultantly the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant having no merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./330/Sr.P' Appeal dismissed.