' ARSHAD BIN AHMAD (MEMBER-III).--- Appellant Muhammad Shafique Ex-District Officer, On Farm Water Management while posted as District Officer at Toba Tek Singh was served with a show- cause notice, dated 13-9-2005 with the following charges:-- "Whereas, you, Mr. Muhammad Shafique, District Officer (OFWM) Toba Tek Singh were assigned target of improvement of 120 watercourses for the year 2004-2005 under "National Program for Improvement of Watercourses in Pakistan (The Punjab Component)". You reported improvement of 121 watercourses as complete at the close of the year. It has, however, been observed during review meeting held on 31-8-2005 that only 33 Final Completion Reports (FCR) have been certified so far out of 121 inspected by the Field Engineer, Punjab Water Management Consultants (PWMC) in your District.
' The Additional Secretary, Project Director, PMU, "National Program for Improvement of Watercourses in Pakistan (The Punjab Component), Lahore has informed that during his visit to Toba Tek Singh, he has observed that you have released 3rd instalment of Government share to the Water Uses Association (WUAs) Accounts on 54 watercourses without fulfilment of requisite codal and legal formalities. As per criteria laid down in the PC-I of the project, the 3rd instalment can only be released subject to receipt of final Completion report (FCR) by Punjab Water Management Consultants (PWMC) engaged by the Government for the purpose."
' In his reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant contested the charges on the grounds that, the targets were against the ground realties such as large number of pending unimproved watercourses, tight selection criteria difficulties in avoiding repetition, fixation of high targets, overwhelming watercourses falling in brackish zone which led to enhancement in civil works, logistic problems, shortage of funds, P.O.L. Repairs, telephone, electricity etc. It was further stated by the appellant that the District Coordination Officer, Toba Tek Singh had especially visited the problematic watercourses and requested the departmental authorities in writing to reduce the target. In addition certain other problems such as litigation by absentee staff already brought to the notice of the headquarter through the District Coordination Officer, Toba Tek Singh and the mental stress caused to him on account of constant official criticism from the headquarter which was a discouraging factor towards his performance. On the charge of releasing the third instalment to the Water Users Association without observing the codal formalities, the appellant justified his action inter alia on the grounds that there was no misappropriation of Government funds or watercourse materials and that the objection of the field consultants was minor in nature when considered in the context of good quality of earthen and civil works. It was stated that the 3rd instalment was cleared and transferred to WUAs accounts in good faith to restore confidence of the WUAs so as to achieve the targets for the next financial year 2005-06. It was however, admitted that the watercourse improvement works suffered from the very beginning due to inexperience, unavoidable administrative, field and financial problems. The reply of the appellant was not considered satisfactory and after a personal hearing granted by respondent No,1 he was awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service vide impugned order, dated 23-9-2005.
The departmental representation filed by the appellant before the respondent No,2 was dismissed vide impugned order, dated 6-3-2006. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset stated that no regular inquiry was held in the matter and the dispensation so made was without any justification and without any reasons specified. He also objected to the irrational haste in issuing the show cause, dated 13-9-2005 and the notice for personal hearing issued on the very next date i,e, on 14-9-2005. Thus, no time was provided to the appellant to defend himself as against the minimum (7) seven days provided under the law. It was further contended that, the appellant was treated in discrimination vis-a-vis his other colleagues namely Bashir Ahmad Sahara, District Officer, Water Management, Hafizabad, Rasheed Ahmad Zafar, District Officer, Water Management, Okara, Manzoor Ahmad Jattala, District Officer Water Management, Kasur, Safdar Ali Cheema, District Officer, Water Management Gujrat, who were all awarded minor penalties of withholding of one increment each on similar charges. It was contended that the target assigned to the above mentioned District Officers was much less than that of the appellant whose overall performance was declared as one of the best. It was contended that instead he was targeted for the alleged lapses in which the headquarters and the senior hierarchy were equally at fault as they did nothing to facilitate the project in terms of removing the battle-necks above. It was vehemently contended that no mala fide intention was involved in the release of the 3rd instalment to the WUAs and that the transaction was made quite transparently through bona fide procedure of issuing cheques.
3. Learned District Attorney on the other hand assisted by the departmental representative vehemently opposed the contentions raised on the basis of the parawise comments and the documents produced. It was contended that the charges of inefficiency on account of delay in achieving the target and releasing the third instalment to the Water Users Association accounts without completion of 54 watercourses and without fulfilling the codal formalities i,e, without issue of the final completion report (FCR), was a serious lapse which cannot be condoned. It was contended that, the appellant was found to have breached the rules/ procedure, therefore, the punishment was justified. As to the contention of the learned counsel about the over all performance of the appellant in Toba Tek Singh District, vis-a-vis his other colleagues in other districts and discriminatory treatment meted out to him vis-a-vis the aforementioned officers who were assigned much lesser target, the learned District Attorney as well as the D.R. Could not give a satisfactory reply.
4. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the record. There appears to be a divergence of views in assessing the performance of the appellant particularly in the face of the problems pointed out by him. On the one hand his work was termed as good/satisfactory by the District Coordination Officer as well as by the field superiors as borne out in the project report for the year 2004-2005 while on the other hand, he has been charged with incomplete/unsatisfactory works. The matter regarding completion of assigned targets and the payment made irregularly deserved to be thrashed out through a regular inquiry by providing opportunity of defence to the appellant as provided under section 5(6) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000. It aiso appeared discriminatory that the appellant who IE had been assigned a higher target than other District Officers and was facing logistic problems referred at para.1 above which was brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the appellant, as well as by the D.C.O., Toba Tek Singh was instead held answerable for the lapses claimed to have been rectified to a large extent by the appellant. As for the release of the 3rd and final quarter by instalment to the WUAs, payment to the WUAs was to be made in 3 instalments @ 45% each for the 1st and 2nd installments and 10% for the 3rd and final instalment' which was to be credited to the account of the Water Users Association subject to certain conditions spelt out in a letter addressed by the appellant to the Manager, National Bank, District Courts Branch, T.T. Singh whereby, the 3rd and final instalment was to be released to the account-holders on the advice of the concerned Deputy District Officers, On Farm Water Management who were also directed to advise the Bank Managers for release of payments to the WUAs after verification of completed civil works. It was also advised therein that funds be released in accordance with the guidelines of the Finance Department contained in Notification, dated 24-6-2005, in order to avoid lapse of funds after 30-6-2005. It was argued by the learned counsel that no loss to the exchequer had actually occurred as the amount of the 3rd and final instalment was lying in the WUAs accounts and could only be drawn after fulfilment of the prerequisites as already discussed above. No inquiry was found to have been conducted whereas it was essential as the entire issue became extremely controversial after having been hotly contested by both parties, particularly when the appellant was denied proper opportunity of defence viz., documentary evidence and cross-examination of witness and the time to put in his written reply as provided under the law. It was also found that, the District Coordination Officer, Toba Tek Singh in his letter of 19-8-2005 addressed to the Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab had highlighted some of the main causes for the delay, caused in achievement of 100% results/targets, viz. Noncooperation of villagers towards cost sharing @ 20% of the cost, high target of 120 watercourses assigned to the District. In fact he had requested for a review of the targets so assigned. As for the procedure adopted in the disciplinary proceedings, the manner in which it was conducted appears to have been done in unnecessary haste thus, vitiating the spirit of the law
(ibid) in providing a reasonable opportunity of self-defence. There appeared to be no justification in dispensing with the regular enquiry as envisaged in section 3 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. In cases involving factual controversies, it has been particularly stressed in a number of judgments of the apex Courts as well as this Tribunal to hold regular inquiry. The proceedings conducted apparently do not conform to the principle of justice and fairplay.
5. In view of the foregoing, the impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service to face fresh proceedings strictly under the law including regular inquiry. The period during which the appellant remained in compulsory retirement is left to be decided by the Competent Authority as an outcome of the fresh proceedings. No order as to costs.