' K.B. ABID (MEMBER-II).--- The departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant under P.E.E.D.A. Act, 2006 regarding the charge of conspiracy for robbery of Government money (pay of staff of R.H.C. Shagharib amounting to Rs,1,41,000) for the month of December, 2006.
2. The Inquiry Committee comprising D.D.O.(II), Shakargarh and S.M. T.H.Q. Hospital Shakargarh was constituted to probe the matter. The recommendations were given by the committee that Waris Ali Tube-well Operator and appellant are involved in this conspiracy. The major penalty against the appellant was recommended. The Competent Authority had issued the show-cause notice to the appellant and he was directed to furnish the additional defence if any and appear for personal hearing. The appellant again had denied the charges levelled against him. The specific defence of the appellant was that in the F.I.R.\his name is not mentioned. The Competent Authority after perusal of the inquiry report and additional defence of the appellant, had concluded that the defence furnished by the appellant is not satisfactory. The penalty of removal from service was awarded to him. The appellant thereafter had filed representation before D.G. Health Services Punjab which was not decided within the mandatory period, hence service appeal filed before the P.S.T.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued in favour of the appellant and stated that immediately after the incident of dacoity, the appellant had informed the Incharge R.H.C. Shah Gharib and Police Station Shah Gharib. The appellant had accompanied Mr. Muhammad Sarwar and got the F.I.R. Registered against the unknown persons. Later on the unknown persons were identified by Muhammad Sarwar and they were arrested on 28-2-2007 and recovery of Rs,1,41,000 was made by them upto 12-3-2007. This amount was further released to clerk under the order of Illaqa Magistrate. Further it was duly disbursed amongst the staff of R.H.C. Shah Gharib. It has been contended that the appellant has been shown as prosecution witness. How he can be charged about connivance with dacoits? The accused persons have been arrested and now on bail. The counsel has pleaded that the conspiracy was hatched by the said Muhammad Sarwar with the respondent No,1 and he had lodged a frivolous complaint against the appellant. The respondent department had initiated the departmental proceedings against the appellant. The Inquiry Committee had summoned all accused i,e, Muhammad Sarwar Junior Clerk, Waris Ali Tube-well Operator and appellant but without providing the statement of the allegations of the accused, had conducted the inquiry in slip shod manner. The major penalty was recommended against the appellant but no findings were given against Muhammad Sarwar. On receipt of the inquiry report, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and he had furnished the additional defence.
The appellant could not avail the opportunity of personal hearing because the notice was received after the prescribed date of hearing. The Competent Authority without waiting for reply of appellant had passed the orders of removal from service which are arbitrary and without any opportunity of personal hearing.
4. Respondents in comments to the appeal have taken the plea that the incident of dacoity had happened on 28-12-2006. The amount of Rs,1,41,000 was snatched. Later on it revealed, that the appellant was involved in conspiracy of the dacoity. In this connection written request of 18 officials of R.H.C. Shah Gharib is available on record. The matter was probed by the Inquiry Committee. The appellant was given the opportunity to defend the case. The Inquiry Committee had recommended that the appellant is involved in conspiracy of dacoity.
5. Record perused. Arguments of the counsel heard. In the F.I.R. No,251 of 2006 dated 28-12-2006,the complaint has been lodged by Muhammad Sarwar and stated that unknown motorcyclist had snatched Rs,141,000 from him. The other statement-was got recorded wherein the appellant had stated that in the dacoity case, Sharafat Ali Driver and Waris Ali Tube-well Operator are involved.
The appellant had requested the S.H.O. Police Station Shah Gharib to arrest both officials for investigation. There is other application written with the signatures of the 18 officials wherein it has been stated that the appellant and Waris Ali Tube-well Operator had kidnapped Muhammad Sarwar and looted the cash on pistol point. After thorough investigations, the police party succeeded to recover the amount from Messrs Shahazad son of Bashir Ahmad and Arif Masih. The same accused were nominated by Muhammad Sarwar. In light of recovery made, the challan against these two persons was submitted to the competent Court. The departmental authority in its report has not recorded the statement of any person which could indicate the connivance of the appellant in the said cdacoityase. Furthermore, in the criminal trial case, the appellant has been shown as prosecution witness but in the departmental proceedings, he has been charged with connivance relating to the dacoity case. The conflicting stand taken by the departmental authorities without having the support of concrete evidences is not sustainable and is arbitrary.
Since the departmental authorities have not produced the valid evidence against the appellant, the charge is not proved. The appeal is accepted. Appellant is re-instated into service and intervening period will be treated as leave of the kind due.