M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal by Sadiq Ali, Ex-Junior Clerk, appellant, under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the (order of the Land Acquisition and Control Officer, Highway Department, Lahore, inflicting the penalty of removal from service.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Junior Clerk under the Chief Land Acquisition and Control Officer, Highway Department. He was placed under suspension on 23rd September, 1978 and served with a charge-sheet vide letter No. 4886/CLACO dated 20th December, 1978 on the following charges :-
(1) While working as such in this office your conduct was prejudicial to good order and service discipline, as your type of performance of duty remained objectionable throughout for which on various occasions you were warned verbally and in writing by me as well as by my predecessors, but you did not try to amend yourself.
(2) During the course of your duties you were used to tactics of slack--ness and shifting your responsibilities on the shoulders of others. Whenever you were asked by the Head Clerk to perform Government duty your behaviour towards him was rude and you on several occasions declined to do it stating that you are not in mood at that time. In references of urgent nature specially Court cases you always made hue and cry particularly when you had to do it after office hours. Your relations from the Head Clerk upto the menials of this office were not cordial.
(3) You were suspected of being engaged in subversive activities and were also being associated with others engaged in subversive activities and you were guilty of disclosure of official secrets to unauthorized persons. Your retention in service is prejudicial to national security.
(4) On this very account and on joint application of the entire office staff taking a lenient view, you were transferred to the office of Land Acquisition and Control Officer, Highway Department Rawalpindi, vide this Office No. 1044/LACO, dated 14th April, 1978. For the cancellation of this transfer order you approached the higher officers of the offices of the Chief Engineer, Highway Department, Secretary, C. & W. And Civil Secretariat and tried at all levels to influence me directly and indirectly.
For the achievement of your object you did not spare in defaming me as well at all levels though as per Delegation of Powers I am your "Appointing Authority" and Transferring Authority. You did make unlawful representations to the higher authorities which should have been routed through proper channel viz. Through Land Acquisition and Control Officer, Highway Department, Rawalpindi.
(5) Immediately you came to know about your transfer you managed to submit medical certificates firstly from Service Hospital with "Eye trouble" as disease and then from the Mayo Hospital with Renal Colic" as disease, without being referred by this of LACO Rawalpindi's Office.
Evidence reveal that during this period you were seen in the offices of the Chief Engineer, Secretary C & W and in Civil Sectt. Even on this you were directed to appear before the Medical Board vide No. 3204/CLACO, dated 29th July, 1978 and lastly vide this office No. 4403/CLACO, dated 25th October, 1978 you were directed to get your photostat copy of medical certificate countersigned by the Service Hospital, Lahore, but as you have been habitual of disobeying all orders, you did not care to comply with this order even.
(6) On various occasions letters/directions were addressed to you on your given address but on many occasions the same were received back undelivered. Your giving false address is another gross charge on your part. In order to avoid any further non-receipt of letters etc., from this office an advertisement was given in various newspapers.
3. The reply to the charge-sheet was submitted on 29th December, 1978. Syed Nalmal Hassan Naqvi, Land Acquisition Officer, Sargodha was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty of all the charges except Charge No. 3. A copy of the report of the enquiry officer was made available to the appellant A show-cause notice was accordingly served vide letter No. 868/CLACO dated 21st February, 1979. The appellant tendered a reply. The appellant was removed from service vide letter No. 1149-CLACO dated 6th March, 1979. Appeal submitted by the appellant was rejected by the Chief Engineer.
4. The appellant has taken the position that the Chief Engineer was convinced of the genuineness of his case and vide his letter dated 28th October, 1978 (at page 355 of the Department File) even cancelled his transfer from Lahore to Rawalpindi. In the above context the appellant felt aggrieved in as much as the respondent No. 2 while rejecting his departmental appeal took a different view.
According to the appellant he was subject to disciplinary action because some other person was to be appointed as a Junior Clerk and a vacancy bad to be created. The appellant refused to oblige by accepting his transfer.
5. We have perused the record and have also examined the charges against the appellant. We find that the appellant was charged for insubordination for his failure to comply with the transfer order, absence without permission with effect from 28th May, 1978, unsatisfactory work and subversive activities. The appellant was exonerated on charge No. 3 relating to subversive activities. Even in the order dated 28th October, 1978 passed by the Chief Engineer cancelling his transfer authorised the Chief Land Acquisition Officer to proceed against the appellant for the allegation of insubordination etc. Thus in our view the order of the Chief Engineer did not preclude the competent authority to take the action for insubordination, unsatisfactory work and objectionable behaviour of the appellant. The appellant has failed to establish any irregularity or any material defect in the impugned orders. In view of above we are satisfied that the charges were adequately established against him and the appellant has failed to make out any good ground for our interference. Since there is no substance in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed in limine.