' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- Muhammad Sharif son of Nazir Ahmad was enrolled as Assistant Gatekeeper at Military Dairy Farms, Okara in 1975. He completed 24 years in the service of the respondents. In the year 1998 he was confronted with an anonymous complaint wherein it was alleged that his name was Muhammad Raqeeb and not Muhammad Sharif. A Court of inquiry was convened in which it was established that Muhammad Raqeeb had succeeded in getting employment with the respondents by impersonating to be Muhammad Sharif. He was accordingly dismissed from service vide order dated 3-11-1999. His departmental appeal dated 24-1-1999 was also dismissed on 9-2-2000. The order of dismissal has been challenged in present appeal filed under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. It is submitted by the appellant that he is Muhammad Sharif son of Nazir Ahmed and he had never committed impersonation.
2. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the real name of appellant is Muhammad Raqeeb and the year of his birth according to school leaving certificate is 1947 but he presented the date of birth of his real brother Muhammad Sharif for his appointment and the date of birth of Muhammad Sharif was 1954. According to the respondents Muhammad Raqeeb was over aged, therefore, he was not eligible for appointment. It is alleged that he impersonated as Muhammad Sharif whose year of birth was 1954 and on that account he was eligible for service.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the departmental representative of the respondents. The record has also been perused by us.
4. A Court of Inquiry was convened to probe into the charge levelled against the appellant. It was established in the Court of Inquiry that Atiya Bibi daughter of Hafiz Fazal-ur-Rehman was married with Muhammad Raqeeb. In this regard the voter lists were duly examined by the Court of Inquiry.
The Nikah ceremony of Muhammad Raqeeb and Mst. Atiya Bibi was performed by Hafiz Muhammad Zikaria. Hafiz Muhammad Zikaria has died. The Court of Inquiry recorded the statement of his son Hafiz Muhammad Siddique. It was stated by Hafiz Muhammad Siddique that it was in his personal knowledge that Muhammad Raqeeb was married with Atiya Bibi daughter of Hafiz Fazal-ur-Rehman and the Nikah was read by his late father. Muhammad Sharif claims to be the husband of Atiya Bibi. If Atiya Bibi was married to Muhammad Raqeeb brother of Muhammad Sharif then she could not be the wife of Muhammad Sharif. Thus from the name of wife it is established that Muhammad Raqeeb had impersonated as Muhammad Sharif because he is now claiming that Atiya Bibi was married with him.
5. Hafiz Muhammad Siddique had identified the appellant to be Muhammad Raqeeb before the Court of Inquiry. He was cross examined by the appellant. It was stated by him in answer to a question put by the appellant that he knew the appellant in person and also stated that as per Nikah name his name was Muhammad Raqeeb. The Court of Inquiry had correctly relied on the statement of this witness.
6. Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq was also examined by the Court of Inquiry. It was stated by him that the original name of Gatekeeper Muhammad Sharif was Muhammad Raqeeb and he was his first cousin. The appellant was given an opportunity to cross examine this witness but he refused to cross examine him. It means that he had accepted the testimony of this witness.
7. The statement of appellant was recorded by the Court of Inquiry. In a question put to him by the Court of Inquiry he refused to give the names of his brother-in-law and sisters-in-law. We fail to understand as to why the appellant had refused to give the names of his brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. If he was Muhammad Sharif and not Muhammad Raqeeb he would not have hesitated in giving the names of his in-laws. It appears to us that the appellant was not in position to make a false statement about his in-laws before the Court of Inquiry. The truth was concealed by him and this clearly proved that he was Muhammad Raqeeb and not Muhammad Sharif.
8. On the basis of overwhelming evidence, documentary as well as oral, the Court of Inquiry came to the conclusion that Muhammad Raqeeb had impersonated as Muhammad Sharif in order to get employment. No procedural mistake was committed by the Court of Inquiry. The statements of witnesses were recorded in the presence of the appellant and he was allowed to cross examine them. He was also allowed every opportunity to present his defence. In the circumstances we are constrained to hold that the action taken by the respondents was strictly in accordance with the rules.
9. Before coming to this Tribunal the appellant had filed a civil suit for declaration that his name was Muhammad Sharif. He failed to get that declaration. On the contrary it was observed by the Civil Judge that from the Nikahnama and school certificate it was established that the name of plaintiff Muhammad Sharif was in fact Muhammad Raqeeb. Since the appellant has failed to get a declaration from a Court of competent jurisdiction that he was Muhammad Sharif and not Muhammad Raqeeb, therefore, we have nothing before us to grant the relief prayed for by him in his present appeal.
10. It is lastly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had not committed any misconduct by claiming to be Muhammad Sharif. The argument is misconceived. Section 416 of the P.P.C. Says that "a person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is". Under Section 417 of the PPC the punishment for cheating is upto one year imprisonment or with fine or with both. When a person commits cheating by personation he commits a misconduct as defined by Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The term "misconduct" is very comprehensive. If an employee does not behave like a gentleman he commits misconduct. In the present case the appellant had committed cheating by impersonating to be his brother Muhammad Sharif. He had thus committed misconduct for which the respondents were fully competent to take action against him. The argument is repelled.
11. No bias or mala fides are alleged against the Members of the Court of Inquiry. On this ground also the appellant has failed to make out a case in his favour.
12. For the above reasons we find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.