Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Hafiz Rab Nawaz, Forest Guard, the then incharge of Forest Area Chak No. 93/NB and Forest Nursery Chak No. 92/NB submitted a complaint against Mr. Zafar Ali Khan Forester/Block Officer, Sargodha before the District Officer Forests, Sargodha, against the appellant alleging bogus preparation of bills, Muster rolls, bogus payments less work done at the site, and shortage of nursery plants. Subsequently, the then District Officer Forests, Sargodha appointed Rana Muhammad Hanif, Assistant Horticulture Officer, Sargodha vide letter dated 8.7.2004, for holding inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted report dated 30.07.2004, wherein, the appellant alleged his incharge Block Officer and as such a regular inquiry was ordered by the competent authority and Mr. Sajid Qudoos Awan, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Talagang Forest Sub-Division (Chakwal Forest Division), was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 26.08.2005 to conduct inquiry against the appellant as well as Hafiz Rab Nawaz, Forest Guard on the allegations as contained in the charge sheet. The inquiry officer after conducting inquiry submitted inquiry report with the following observations:--
(i) All the allegations leveled against Mr. Zafar Ali Khan Forester/ Block Officer are proved. He is guilty of misconduct, inefficiency and corruption.
(ii) The allegations against Hafiz Rab Nawaz FG are partially proved. He is guilty of misconduct inefficiency.
Due to the negligence, corruption, disorganization, heedlessness, derisory propensity regarding departmental tasks they both justify sever/ major punishments. The following punishments are recommended:--
(a) Mr. Zafar Ali Khan Forester/ Block Officer Sargodha may be dismissed from service and the Government loss for the plantation areas and Nursery be recovered.
(b) Hafiz Rab Nawaz FG may be compulsory retired from service and the Government loss for the plantation areas and Nursery be recovered."
2. In view of above said recommendations, the appellant was awarded major penalty of recovery of Rs.6,70.667/-, however instead of awarding major penalty of dismissal from service, the competent authority imposed minor penalty of withholding of increments for two years due on 01.12.2008 and 01.12.2009, by taking a lenient view, vide, impugned order dated 29.03.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed departmental appeal dated 15.04.2008 before Respondent No. 1.
However, the same was not decided within the stipulated period, as such the appellant filed service Appeal No. 2225 of 2008 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.04.2009 with the direction to Respondent No. 1 to decide the pending departmental appeal of the appellant within a period of two months. Accordingly, the Respondent No, 1 rejected the departmental appeal of the appellant vide impugned order dated 07.09.2008. Hence, this appeal.
3. The counsel for the appellant argued that the Allegation No. 1 and 2 relates to making signature of Hafiz Rab Nawaz, Forest Guard on the muster rolls/ bills prepared for newly plantation at Chak No. 93, whereas, the inquiry officer instead of transmitting the case of verification of signatures of Hafiz Rab Nawaz, Forest Guard, assumed the position of Finger Print Bureau and held the appellant responsible of the charge keeping aside the fact that the appellant vehemently refused the charge in reply to charge sheet. He stated that the report of inquiry officer does not commensurate with the record and just based on presumptions, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. The learned District Attorney opposed the contentions of the counsel for the appellant by relying on the parawise comments submitted 'by the respondents.
5. Arguments of the parties heard and available record gone through.
6. Keeping aside the other aspects of the case, I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that before giving recommendations in respect of Charge No. 1, the inquiry officer should have forwarded the case to Finger Print Bureau, Lahore to dig out the truth that either the signatures on the muster rolls/bills prepared for newly raised plantation at Chak No. 93, were made fraudulently by appellant or they were made by Hafiz Rab Nawaz, Forest Guard himself. On this sole point, the report of inquiry officer is not sustainable in the eye of law because no one can be held guilty only on presumption. Under these circumstances, it will be appropriate to remand the case to competent authority to hold a regular departmental inquiry again in accordance with law.
7. In view of above discussions, I accept this appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The case is remanded to competent authority to hold regular inquiry in accordance with law.