1983 PLP (C (PLC)

5. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the impugned order dated 5‑12‑1981, has been passed very correctly by the respondent No. 2 after giving detailed background and the history of the case. It is clear from the impugned order that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, when prima facie charges against the appellant were fully established and thus there was no necessity of holding of a regular enquiry and the service of notice was valid and perfectly in order in the light of the provisions of E & D Rules, so quoted by the appellant's cou6sel. The learned District Attorney has also submitted that the appellant was directly responsible for the supervision of the nursery and the works to be carried out by him as such the punish ment awarded was in accordance with the guilt/misconduct of the appellant; who has been punished correctly and lawfully.

6. We have heard the parties and have also taken pains to peruse the record of the appellant so produced by the respondents. A perusal of the record shows that the allegations of inefficiency and misconduct against the appellant shown in show‑cause notice prima facie were established and thus we are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the service of show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, is perfectly in order and the appellant was also afforded full opportunities to defend himself. On perusal, the service record of the appellant also reveals, that he was malingerer and had all checkered service career ; which is clear from the following facts :‑ (1) He was suspended by D. F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, Bure wala vide his order No. 119/NBFD, dated 8‑2‑1968 for large scale damage of trees standing m the compound of Rest House, Kamir. (2) Dismissed from service vide D. F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, Burewala, office order No. 49/NBFD, dated 2‑10‑1969. (3) Re‑instated on acceptance of appeal vide Chief Conservator of Forests, Multan Region, Multan order No. 185/CCFMR, dated 9‑5‑1970. (4) Punished by D. .F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, at Sahiwal, No. 53/NBFD, dated II‑10‑1972, for absence from duty as follows :‑‑ (i) Absence from 15‑10‑1970 to 21‑10‑1970 treated as leave with out pay. (ii) One next increment stopped. (iii) A Character Roll warning to be careful in future. (5) Removed from service on 4‑5‑1974 for loss/damages of trees vide D. F. O Nillibar Forest Division, order dated 4‑5‑1974. . (6) Re‑instated vide D. F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, Sahiwal order No. 1381NFD, dated 30‑11‑1976, as a result of acceptance of his appeal No. 101/605/1975 by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. (7) Charge‑sheeted by D. F. O.,. Nillibar Forest Division, Sahiwal vide his No‑ 6553/E, dated 11‑4‑1977 on the same charges as mentioned in serial No. 5 above. (8) Lenient view taken and punishment of ; warning, recovery of Government loss of Rs. 723 and suspension period to be treated as leave without pay was ; awarded vide D. F. O., Nillibar Forest Division, Shaiwal, order No. 87/NBFD, dated 7‑12‑1977. (9) Punished vide D. F. O., Sahiwal Forest Division, Sahiwal, order No. 69/SFD. dated 31‑12‑1980, for absence from duty ; wherein a warning was issued to him and the period of absence was treated as leave without pay. (10) Removed from service by D. F. O., Sahiwal Forest Division, Sahiwal. vide impugned order No. 75, dated 5‑12‑1981;

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.