1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHARY (CHAIRMAN).--This Government appeal filed on l6th October 1974 is against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpar, dated 27th October. 1972 granting a declaration to the respondent that the impugned order dated 3 June.
2. 1969 passed by the Conservator of Forests, Bahawalpur, reducing him to the post of Deputy Ranger and withholding his three annual increments and directing t9e recovery of Rs. 839 from him was illegal, void and ineffective, irregular ultra vires and also granting hint the perpetual injunction, restraining the Department from the recovery of a sum of Rs. 834 and reverting him from the post of Forest Ranger to that of Deputy Ranger. The facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant on 9th November. 1968 wan charge-sheeted tinder the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 on the ground that during the inspection hold in, March and April, 1968 by the Conservator of Forests Bahawalpur Circle, when the respondent was posted as Forest Ranger incharge of compartment No. 2, Abbasia Plantation, it was noticed that 5 acres of Eucalyptus plants needed main--tenance and the respondent failed to carry out the instructions of the Inspecting Officer (Conservator of Forests, Bahawalpur) regarding the spot weeding and sowing of Eucalyptus after removing Polythene tubes despite demonstration by the Conservator of Forest himself. Similarly, the respondent was accused of disregarding the instructions of his superiors in sowing Piplac crop to facilitate irrigation system for the same. Thus it was alleged that the respondent was guilty of not carrying out the instructions of the Conservator of Forest in his inspection note for the months of March, and April, 1968. Lastly, he was charged that though posted on 18th April, 1967 he had sold the kharf crop in Abbasia and Sahiwal Plantations for the year 1967 in January, 1968 instead of July and August, 196 7 for a sum of Rs. 1100 only whereas it was pre--rd viously sold for Rs. 2,051. The shortfall was due to his not selling crop, at the right time. It was alleged drat the crop at the time of sale in January, 1968 has already been damaged and could fetch a sum of Rs. 120 only as against Rs. 959 being the average of last three years. Thus there was a net loss of Rs. 839. He was held liable for the same. The reason--dent replied the charge-sheet on 4th March. 1969. His reply having been found unsatisfactory, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Divisional Forest Officer, Bahawalpur, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On receipt of the inquiry report, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice dated 3rd May, 1969 as to why he should not be reduced in rank and recovery of the amount of Rs. 839 should not be recovered from him. He replied the show- cause notice on the lath December, 1969. He was ordered to be reverted as Deputy Range Oll6cer with the condition that his promotion will be withheld for three years and a sum of Rs. 839 was ordered to be recovered froth him. The order dated 3rd Jane, 1969 passed by the Competent Authority was appealed against before the Chief Conservator of Forest Multan Region, who rejected the same on 20th August, 1970. Finally the respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 122/71 on 13th May, 1971 before the Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur which was dismissed on 26th May, 1972.
3. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bahawalpur, which was accepted on 27th October, 1972 and the suit was decreed. The learned District Judge, while accepting the appeal observed as under :- "It has also been argued before me with great stress and strain by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was wrongly punished although no evidence had been produced at the inquiry to prove the allegations against him. It is very clear from the record that no evidence at all was produced against the respondent during the course of enquiry. The perusal of the inquiry report Exh. P. 19 shows that Bashir Ahmad, Head Clerk Rarest Division, Rahim Yar Khan, stated before the Inquiry Officer that the appellant had not carried out the instructions of the Conservator of Forests. It has been stated in the inquiry report under the: heading "Discussion" that no witness had been produced by the either side in the inquiry. This means that none had appeared to state before the Inquiry Officer, what were the allegations against the appellant. No doubt, there was record before the Inquiry Officer containing the allegations against the respondent. The question whether these allegations bred been proved or not against the appellant. The allegations could be proved against the appellant if some official of the Forest Department had appeared as witness before the Inquiry officer and bad stated what were the allegations against him. The respondent should have then been given an opportunity to cross-examine him. However, there is nothing on the record to show that such a procedure was adopted. In other words, it has transferred that there was no evidence produced at the inquiry to prove the allegations against the appellant. For this reason also the order dated 3rd June, 1969 of the Conservator of Forests is liable to be set aside.
4. As admittedly, appellant was not heard in person before framing of the charge-sheet, it appears to me that the Efficiency and discip--line Rules, 1960, were not complied with while holding an inquiry under those rules against the appellant. Such being the position, the order whereby the appellant was punished conse--quent upon an inquiry against him cannot be sustained in the eye of law and must be set aside."
5. Besides above, it was also found by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, as admitted by the Government Pleader before hire that the present respondent had not been given an opportunity of being heard after the service of charge-sheet upon him. Consequently he reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. The Government filed a Civil Revision against the aforesaid order before the Lahore High Court, but after the establishment of this Tribunal the said Revision Petition was declared to have abated. Finally the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 16th October, 1974. The learned Govern--ment Pleader in support of this appeal raised the following contentions :--
(1) That the respondent in reply to the charge-sheet never claimed to be heard in person ;
(2) That in the notice issued by the Inquiry Officer, the respondent was given a specific opportunity to bring his, witnesses and evidence, but the respondent never produced any witness or evidence in support of his case ;
(3) That the respondent almost conceded his mistake before the Divisional Forest Officer. Thus he could not be heard to con--tend that he has suffered any prejudice due to lack of any opportunity granted to him.
(4) That Bashir Ahmad appearing for the Department made an oral, statement that the respondent had failed to comply with the directions contained in the Inspection Notes for the months of March and April, 1968. Thus it was nowhere the case of the respondent that no evidence had been allowed by the Department in support against him.
6. The Department thus pressed for the acceptance of this appeal. The respondent strongly relied upon the findings of the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, and he contended that the respondent was summoned by the Competent Authority on 2nd June, 1969 but no hearing ever took place. He also relied upon the fact that in August, 1969 the same officer viz. Conservator of Forests, Bahawalpur, inspected the plantation and gave altogether different reasons as to the failure of the crop. Specific reliance was placed on para. 13 in Annexure R-I, which vas to the following effect :- "With another five acres Eucalyptus Plantation done last year the total area under Eucalyptus in Abbassian Plantation is now 10 acres. Unfortunately, the planting stock brought last year from Chichawatni was of extremely poor quality. The plants raised were obviously pricked and they were such weaklings that they could not put on any growth. The majority of plants were microtheca species mixed with various hybrids. The restocking of these stock that is now available in Bahawalpur nursery. The restocking is hoped to be completed within a week or so."
7. Similarly the following portion of para. 3 of Annexure R-2, was also relied upon by the respondent :- "Apart from 10 acres nursery raised during 1966-67 and 1967-68 (1966-67=5 acres) (1967-8=5 acres) another 5.5 acres of nursery has been raised this year (1968-69) of which 4.5 acres is under D. Sissoo, o.
5. Acres under Melia azarach and o. 5 acre under Albizzia lebbek. No nurseries raised by the present D. F. O. Are inferior to the previous ones although an expenditure of Rs. 3,980 has been incurred which works out to Rs. 796 per acre. This is quite a high cost for the type of work done. With the vast experience the D. F. O. Possesses it is regrettable that his works are for two expensive and could not be justified technically or professionally. His explanation is being called separately 3,70,000 shisham stamps were extract--ed from the nurseries raised in 1966-67 and another 1,00,000 this year and yet another 2,86,130 stumps were obtained from 1967-68 nursery. In other words a total of 7,56,130 stumps have been extracted from the 10 acres nursery raised in the previous years. Unfortunately the prevent nursery raised by the D. F. O. Has little plant population. It has also not beer; treated with artificial fertilizer as was hitherto done."
8. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the Govern--ment appeal cannot succeed in this case. Firstly, the findings by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, that no evidence had been produced lay the department during the enquiry has not been controverted before us. In the circumstances, the production of evidence against the appellant became indispensable in the absence of which he could not be punished. Unless any evidence was adduced by the Depart-- ment the respondent need not lead any evidence in rebuttal or produce any defence. Secondly it is admitted that he was never heard by any officer after the service of the charge-sheet upon him. It is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. He could not be said to have been given due opportunity in terms of the Efficiency and Discipline--ary Rules of 1960. The findings of the District Judge, are, therefore, unexceptionable and hereby maintained. Consequently, the Government appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.