' M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal under SEC. Lion 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974, against the order of Divisional Forest Officer, Mianwali Division dated 31st October, 1973, whereby the appellant Mr. Asmat Ullah Khan, Forester was removed from service and the order dated 1st February 1974 passed by the Conservator of Forests, Sargodha Circle, rejecting the appeal of Mr. Asmat Ullah Khan.
2. At the relevant time the appellant-was working as a Forester at Mianwali in the Mianwali Forest Division when by an order dated 26th May 1973 of the D. F. 0 , Mialwali he was transferred from the charge of Check Posts to Masson Block. In his place one Muhammad Amir Forester was posted. The latter it appears had hesitation in assuming his new charge.On the plea of danger to his life on account of involvement of his family in blood feuds at Mianwali. On these grounds Forester Muhammad Amir applied for the cancellation of his transfer orders, but his request was rejected by the D. F. 0, vide his order dated 4th June 1973. It appears that subsequently Mr. Muhammad Amir instead of joining his new post resigned from service. The appellant in his representation dated 2nd June 1973 addressed to the D. F.
0. Also requested for the cancellation of his transfer order on personal grounds. On the receipt of a report from Range Officer to the effect that the appellant had refused to hand over charge, the D. F.
0. Ordered another Forester Ghulam Muhammad to assume charge of the section. Simultaneously he suspended the appellant on the plea of non-compliance of the transfer orders issued by the D.
F.
0. The appellant submitted a lengthy protest against his suspension order which is dated 16th June 1973 (Annexure 'G' on record) in which he at length alleged that the D. F.
0. Mr. Abdul Qadeer Khan who suspended him was actuated by mala fide and ill-will due to the appellant having levelled serious charges of corruption and malpractices against the said Divisional Forest Officer in a number of petitions addressed to higher authorities including the Governor and also in some Press statements. The charge of Check Post section was however taken over by Ghulam Muhammad Forester on 15th June 1976. Subsequently a charge-sheet dated 20th June 1973 charging the appellant with misconduct arising out of his refusal to hand over charge of Check Posts section first to Muhammad Amir Forester and later to Ghulam Muhammad Forester, was served upon him. In reply to the charge sheet the appellant submitted in writing that his forementioned protest against his suspension dated 16th June 1973 (Annexure G on record) may be considered as his explanation to the charge sheet. Ultimately the enquiry against the appellant was held on 13th September, 1973 and the statement of appellant and other witnesses was recorded. Thereafter the appellant vide his letter of 22nd September, 1973 protested against the appointment of a Range Officer working directly under Mr. Abdul Qadeer D. F.
0. As an enquiry officer but this belated request was rejected by the D. F.
0. And the appellant duly informed. On 24th September 1973 the enquiry officer submitted his report to the D. F.
0. In which he held him guilty of misconduct on account of disobedience of orders. On the same day the appellant was issued a notice by the D. F.
0. To show cause as to why he should not be removed from service on account of the charge of misconduct having been established against him. Subsequently on 31st October 1975 the D. F. O., Mianwali Mr. Abdul Qadeer Khan proceeded to pass the impugned order of removal of the appellant. In the said order it was stated that the appellant had submitted no reply to the show cause notice and repeated efforts to serve a police on the appellant for appearing 'before the D. F.
0. Had failed. The appellant appealed against order of his removal to the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab Forests Department who passed it on to the Conservator of Forests for disposal who rejected the appeal vide his order dated 1st February, 1974.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised a number of contentions both on points of law as well as facts. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that relations between the appellant and Mr. Abdul Qadeer Khan his D. F.
0. Who was the competent authority in his case had become extremely strained so that the said D.
F.
0. Was actuated by personal malice and ire against the appellant. In support of this contention the appellant has relied upon his complaint dated 2nd May 1973 addressed to the Governor with copies endorsed to the Chief Minister Punjab, Minister of Agriculture and Commissioner Sargodha Division. In this lengthy complaint the appellant has described himself as Joint Secretary, Forester's Association Mianwali Forest Division, and has levelled a number of serious charges of corruption and malfeasance against the D. F. O. Mr. Abdul Qadeer had demanded an enquiry into the allegations and had voluntered to substantiate the charges levelled by him. He himself proposed the names of the enquiry officer as Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Minhas P.C.S. Magistrate Class I, Mianwali or Ch. Muhammad Sharif Cheema, S. P., Mianwali.
4. The appellant avers that the complaint ultimately came to the Deputy Commissioner Mianwali, and A. D. C. (G) summoned the appel. Lant for enquiry for 12th June 1973 on appellants objection that the A. D. C. (G) had friendly relations with the D.F.O. The enquiry was transferred to Muhammad Iqbal Minhas, the Enquiry Officer of the appellant's own choice. The appellant further avers that the appellant was not associated further with proceeding and the enquiry was later on transferred to some other Magistrate 1st Class and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner Mianwali informed the appellant vide his letter of 6th March 1974 that the allegations levelled by him against the D.F.O.
Had not been proved in the enquiry and the case had as such been filed. It is the appellant's contention that it was after this incident that the D. F.
0. Became highly inimical towards him and set in train action to victimise him which culminated in his removal, which is impugned before us. In support of his contentions the appellant relies upon the Rules laid down in the case cited as PLD 1970 Lab, 811. The facts of the cited case P L 0 1970 Lah.
811 as narrated by his lordship are :- 'In this case, an enquiry was held with which the petitioner was not associated no evidence was led by either party; the Enquiry Officer acted upon the basis of an ex pane preliminary enquiry held by another enemy of the petitioner; and the findings arrived at by him were placed before the president who had only one side of the picture before him and that too had been painted by a person who had a long history of open enmity towards the petitioner. The president was not even informed that the petitioner had protested against the appointment of the Enquiry Officer whose findings were being placed before him. It was, therefore, a case where there was only one version before the president and that too of a biased person.
' In the instant case the bias is alleged against the competent authority. The bias alleged against the enquiry officer is only by implication because of his being a subordinate of Mr. Abdul Qadeer D.F.O. In the absence of any direct allegation of bias we do not accept such a fetched contention of bias against the inquiry officer for reasons given latter in this order the charges against the appellant stand established on the basis of his own averments and in that context also the allegations of bias become irrelevant. The facts of the instant Case are materially different. In this case before us a formal enquiry was held in which the appellant was provided opportunity to produce his defence and cross examine the witnesses. The competent authority against whom bias is alleged did not differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Resultanty we do not think that the cited case is of any help to the appellant.
5. It is next argued that the charges levelled against the appellant are ex facie wrong and incorrect, as the appellant had never refused to hand over charge. We have carefully considered this plea of the appellant. As narrated in para. 2 above, when the appellant was placed under suspension he lodged a lengthy protest against his suspension, and in reply to the charge-sheet the appellant had stated that his forementioned protest may be taken as his reply to the charge-sheet. We have carefully gone through the aformentioned reply other charge-sheet (which is Annex. 'G' on record).
According to the appellant his transfer orders under controversy were issued on 26th May 1973 which the appellant claims never to have seen till the day of his writing his protest, (but against which he represented to the D. F.
0. Orally at the latter's residence during a meeting on 27th May 1973 on personal grounds). The appellant states that the D. F.
0. Agreed that his case was genuine and that he should put in a written representation, which the appellant did on 2nd June, 1973 through his Range Officer. The appellant avers that his range officer had orally instructed him not to hand over charge of his section till he received written orders from him. The appellant conceded that during the sick leave of his Range Officer from 3rd to 13th June 1973. Muhammad Amir Forester came to him and told him that he had come to take over charge on the oral directions of the D. F.
0. But the appellant refused to hand over charge on the plea that he had brought no written orders of the D. F. O. It may be observed here that the appellant was fully aware of his written transfer order as he had represented against the same to the D. F.
0. On 2nd June 1976. The appellant further says that on 19th June 1976, he was summoned by the Range Officer at the latter's residence where Amir Muhammad Khan Forester, was also present. The Range Officer directed the appellant to hand over charge of his section to Amir Muhammad Khan.
The appellant admits to have refused to hand over charge once again. The appellant says that he told the Range Officer that while receiving the representation for cancelling his transfer orders he had himself told the appellant not to hand over charge without written orders from him and since the Range Officer had not given any written orders he was not prepared to hand over the charge to Amir Muhammad Forester, till his representation was disposed of. The Range Officer then took the appellant to the D. F.
0. Office for obtaining the latter's orders. Where the appellant was orally conveyed the D. F.
0.'s orders to hand over charge, but this time also the appellant admits refusing to hand over charge and insisted upon a formal disposal of his representation for cancellation of his transfer orders. At 12-00 O'clock the same night the appellant found the Range Officer and Ghtdam Muhammad Forester, present at the Check Post, which was his place of duty, where the Range Officer gave the appellant written orders to hand over charge to Ghulam Muhammad Forester.
Even on this occasion the appellant refused to hand over charge on the plea that the order did not refer to his representation for cancellation of his transfer orders.
6. From the appellants own narration of facts as recorded above? We are fully convinced that the charges of persistently refusing to hand over charge of his section levelled against the appellant were well founded-and are substantiated from his own averments. His repeated refusals to hand over charge on one plea or the other are admitted on record. When it suits the appellant he attacks the highest sanctity to, oral orders of his superiors and when it suits him otherwise he flouts the oral as well as the written orders of the same authority. His insistence upon the technical formality of a formal order on his representation for cancellation of his transfer order, when seen in the content of the facts of this case was just an excuse for refusing or delaying the exchange of charge. We, therefore, hold that the charge has been fully brought home against the appellant. It is also observed that in the context of appellant's own averments the allegation of any implied bias against the enquiry officer becomes an irrelevant factor.
7. The next point of the appellant is that the impugned orders of his removal was passed against him without affording him a personal hearing and is as such in violation of the principals of natural justice and the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and is consequently void. We have carefully gone through the Departmental explanation against para 14 of the grounds of appeal and are convinced that the Department had shown sufficient diligence to serve a notice on the appellant. Repeated notices sent to his home address were received back undelivered. A number of officials were deputed to personally serve the notices on the appellant but the appellant refused to take delivery of any communication. The copies of reports of such officials and other communications sent by post have also been placed on record as Annexure 'XVIII to XXV'. We consequently reject this plea of the appellant as well.
8. The appellant has also advanced the plea that his case has been prejudiced by the non- production of M. Riazul Haq Range Officer although the appellant had asked for his appearance. To satisfy the appellant we summoned Mr. Riaz-ul-Haq before us and recorded his statement in his presence and allowed him to cross-examine him. We do not find anything in the statement of M.
Riaz-ul-Haq which could have the effect of disproving the factum of the persistent refusal of the appellant to hand over charge of his section.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any merit in any of the pleas advanced on behalf of the appellant.
10. The appeal is rejected as having no merit with no orders as to costs.