1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑ Mr. Muhammad Parvez Farooq, ex‑Statistical Computer, Agriculture Department has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he had impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab Agricul ture Department and Director, Crop Reporting Services, Agriculture Department, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders of respondent No. 2 bearing No.C R S‑4 (9)/78/7592, dated 20th July, 1981 terminating services of the Appellant be set aside.

3. Brief history of the case is that Muhammad Parvez Farooq, Statistical Computer was working in Agriculture Department. He proceeded on self‑granted leave, on 4th 'April, 1981 to 8th April, 1981. Then he again absented himself from duty from 25th April, 1981 onwards on the pretext of illness but when he was directed to get the Medical Certificate countersigned from the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Lahore this Medical Superintendent declared him fit for duty and did not countersign the Medical Certificate which showed that he was not actually ill and proceeded on self‑granted leave. The Appellant also instigated the field staff not to do the Government work. His incre ment falling due, on 1st December, 1979 was stopped for one year and also he was censured to be careful in future on account of misconduct. But he did not show any improvement and continued misbehaving with his superiors and did not observe the official decorum. Consequently, on 17th May, 1981 he was served with a show‑cause notice. Reply to the show‑cause notice was considered which was found unsatisfactory. He was also heard in person and his services were terminated with immediate effect, vide Director, Crop Reporting Services order, dated 20th July, 1981. He made an appeal to respondent No. I on 20th August, 1981 which is still pending. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued only on this main issue that no regular enquiry was held in his case and the appellant was not given a chance to defend himself properly. This is against the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 and also against the principles of natural justice, fair‑play and equity. He further argued that the appel lant was not beard in person and was not given an opportunity to defend himself before passing the impugned order. The learned District Attorne controverted these arguments by saying that he could be proceeded under rule 6 (3) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules by dispending with the regular enquiry where the charges were concrete and were borne on record. Thus show‑cause notice was served to the appellant as per requirements of the rules. Reply to his show‑cause notice was duly considered. He was heard in person. This fact was made known to the appellant and his counsel while this case was being beard by the Tribunal, by showing the record produced by the representative of the department. The learned District Attorney concluded that after personal hearing of the appellant and satisfying himself of the correctness of the charges, the competent authority had rightly and lawfully terminated the services of the appellant.

5. We have given anxious thoughts to the arguments put forward by the appellant's counsel, the learned District Attorney and have gone through his service record very carefully. We agree with the learned District Attorney that he was correctly served with a show‑cause notice under rule 6 (3) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules. 1975. His reply to show‑cause notice was duly considered. He was heard in person as well. Thus, all the opportunities as required by Efficiency and Discipline Rules were provided to him to defend himself. We have checked his service record as well which is also unsatisfactory. His service record shows that on 27th February, 1979, Chief Secretary, Punjab, made a surprise visit to the Statistical Section, Civil Secretariat and the appellant was found fighting with a peon at the time of surprise visit of the Chief Secretary, He was charge‑sheeted, found guilty of the misconduct and his increment falling on 1st December, 1979 for one year was stopped with out cumulative effect. He was also censured to be careful in future. His general behaviour with his superiors remained un-satisfactory which is clear from the office note, dated 27th April, 1981 of Syed Qaiser Jehangir Gilan, Statistical Officer wherein he had also suggested that the appellant be transferred out of Lahore or shifted from his section due to his attitude towards his superiors (Appellant's Personal File, Page 125). This note was well‑supported by the Statistician‑III, vide his note dated 28th April, 1981 (Appellant's Personal File, Page 127). There are also reports about his non co‑operative behaviour and indifferent attitude by Mr. Muhammad Aslam, Statistical Investigator, ST‑III Section and Mr. Anwar‑ul‑Haq, Statis tical Investigator, ST‑III Section on pages. 129 and 131, respectively of his personal file.' Thus, his misconduct and misbehaviour towards his superiors is proved without any reasonable doubts.

6. Keeping the above facts in view we hold that the services of the appellant has been lawfully and correctly terminated. There are no merits in his appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no costs as to the parties. A. E. Appeal dismissed.