' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant, an ex-Ziladar, has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 whereby he has impleaded Superintending Engineer (H. Qs.), Office of the Chief Engineer. Irrigation Department, Multan, and Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Multan, as respondents. He has prayed that the impugned orders dated 23rd January, 1980 and 5th March, 1980 passed by the Superintending Engineer (H. Qs.) Irrigation, Multan, and Chief Engineer, Irrigation Multan, respectively be set aside as being illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :- "Riaz-ul-Hassan originally joined service as Assistant Vernacular Clerk in Rahim Yar Khan Irrigation Circle in 1953. In October, 1980 he was charged for having made alterations and additions in the Revenue Record. After proper enquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960, he was dismissed from service. However, he managed to join WAPDA and worked there upto June, 1974 when Scarp III Circle was transferred from WAPDA to the Irrigation Department with effect from 1st July, 1974 and the appellant stood transferred to the Irrigation Department, Muzaffargarh Canal Circle. The appellant was informed vide letter dated 23rd January, 1980 that his services stood terminated on the grounds of misconduct. Hence this appeal."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader assisted by Superintending Engineer (H. Qs.), Multan, and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance, It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that in October, 1960 he applied for one week's casual leave on the ground of private urgent affairs, and after the expiry of the said leave he tendered his resignation from service and left the Department. He remained under the impression that his resignation had been accepted. Thereafter, he joined as Ziladar in WAPDA in the year 1962. According to the appellant, termination of his services was illegal as no proceedings were taken as envisaged under the Rules. He has termed this dismissal as abrupt without any opportunity of being heard. He has claimed that he was never dismissed by the Department and in fact he left the Department after submitting his resignation.
4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader has controverted his claim as baseless and being without any force. He has taken up the plea that the proceedings taken against the appellant show that the appellant, was properly heard. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the stand taken by the appellant is without any foundation, and besides the fact of dismissal being within his knowledge he practised fraud on WAPDA and joined service there definitely with the claim that he was a person who had resigned his job earlier. According to the learned Government Pleader, a dismissed Government servant is debarred for future employment in any Government or semi-Government Department and, therefore, his appointment was ab initio void, which would not need any further proceedings under the E & D Rules against him.
5. We have given or anxious thought to the contentions so raised by the appellant before us and have satisfied ourselves from the record that he was heard in person and made a statement before the authority on 30th December, 1970 a photostat copy of the same has been placed on the record. The perusal of order of dismissal also clearly indicates that full justice was done to his case and that he was dismissed from service when it was found that he was guilty of alterations and additions in the record, a conduct which was highly questionable. We are in agreement with the contentions raised by the Government Pleader that the appellant was a dismissed Government servant and was not entitled to seek employment in any other Department as he had done in the present case. We are also of the considered opinion that the appellant was duly heard before passing the impugned order, therefore it would not be justified to allow him a second opportunity on the same score. The competent authority was fully justified to consider him as persona non grata being a dismissed servant of the Department, who could not under any circumstances be allowed to remain in service which he had managed to secure by practising fraud. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to repeal the arguments advanced on his behalf that the powers exercised under E & D Rules would be justified in his case. The result is we dismiss his appeal as being without any force. However, there will be no order as to costs.