' JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).---The case of the appellant according to the memorandum of appeal is that he was serving as a Naib Qasid in the Revenue Department and while posted in the office of Respondent No,4 was assigned duties of collection of Abiana/agriculture tax. In connection therewith, he visited the area and collected Abiana'/agriculture tax and deposited the same in the Government treasury. In the meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the orders of Respondent No,2 and allegedly a charge-sheet containing the allegations of unauthorized absence from duty was issued to him.
According to the appellant, the same was never served on him and the moment he came to know about the pendency of proceedings, he appeared before Respondent No,1 and explained his position. However, without considering his submissions and even without calling any report from Respondent No,4, Respondent No,2 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 23-2-2005 by which major penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on him. The appellant preferred departmental appeal which was rejected by Respondent No,1 vide his order dated 9-2- 2005. Hence the appeal before this Tribunal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the charge of absence from duty from 14-9-2004 to 7-10-2004 but the charge-sheet was never served on him and when he ultimately, received a notice of personal hearing, he came to know about the same. He appeared before Respondent No,2 and explained his position. He has argued that it was incumbent upon Respondent No,2 to have called a report from Respondent No,4 to verify the issuance of the order and consequent assignment of duties to him with regard to collection of taxes, but he had failed to do so; that Respondent No, 1 had failed to requisition the relevant record on a report from Respondent No,4 to verify the correctness of the plea of the appellant and that Respondent No,2 in a mechanical manner had proceeded to uphold the impugned order passed by the competent authority. ,Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that during the so called inquiry proceedings, no evidence was recorded nor the record from the concerned officer was requisitioned; that the so called charges of absence were believed by the order dated 8-9-2004 and that the appellant had never absented himself from duty, rather he had been performing his duties under the orders of his immediate higher officer i,e, Respondent No,4. He has argued that neither any notice was issued to the appellant nor any witnesses had been examined, not to speak of allowing any opportunity to cross-examine them.
Hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, the respondents have taken the plea that it is apparent from the record that the appellant had remained absent from duty unauthorizedly with effect from 14-9-2004 and from the record it appears that he had been never deputed by the competent authority i,e, Respondent No,2 for the collection of the Government dues. The respondents have taken the plea that the alleged order dated 8-9-2004 purportedly issued by Respondent No,4 is an after-thought and during the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was unable to produce any such document before Respondent No,1 and moreover Respondent No,4 had no authority to issue such an order concerning the staff members who were not subordinate to him and that in fact the appellant was working under the control of Respondent No,2 and not under Respondent No,4.
4. Respondent No,4 has taken the plea that the appellant was actually working in his office as Naib Qasid/Jamadar and it was also correct that he had deputed him to collect 'Abiana'/agriculture tax and he was directed verbally to recover the Government dues and to report in his office after 3/4 days. But the appellant did not come back to his office after the said period nor he deposited a single penny collected by him and by doing so he had not only flouted his orders, but had remained absent from duty unauthorizedly.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides. Keeping in view nature of the penalty imposed on the appellant and nature of the allegations levelled against him, it was incumbent upon the competent authority i,e, District Officer (Revenue), Narowal to have provided to the appellant sufficient time to file reply to charge-sheet.. The charge-sheet was issued to the accused official on 9-12-2004 which was delivered to him on 10-12-2004, but it does not appear that he was allowed sufficient time to file reply to the charge-sheet or to produce evidence in his defence. In view of the specific plea of Respondent No,4 to the effect that actually he had deputed the appellant for the purpose of collection of 'Abiana/agriculture tax, it appears appropriate to direct the Respondent No,2 to order a de novo inquiry in the matter in accordance with law and thereafter to pass a fresh order in the matter in the light of the inquiry report.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is accepted the impugned orders passed by the respondents are set aside and the matter is sent back to Respondent No,2 to order a de novo inquiry in the' matter and on the basis of the inquiry report to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law.