Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellant with his co-accused namely Muhammad Shahid, Forest Guard was proceeded against by the departmental competent authority i.e, Divisional Forest Officer Faisalabad/Respondent No, 2 for causing willful and with bad- intention damage to the trees numbering 51 and such damage/shortage was calculated against both the aforesaid employees as Rs, 4,54,340/- for which the half share, after apportionment, was determined as recovery against the appellant. On completion of disciplinary proceedings the competent authority imposed the following penalties upon the appellant vide order dated 13.07.2013:- Recovery of Rs, 2,27,170/- (Half share of the damage). Dismissal from Service.
The appellant feeling aggrieved of the above mentioned penalties, preferred departmental appeal before Conservator of Forest Faisalabad Circle but his appeal remained abortive at this forum also.
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant service appeal.
2. While arguing in favor of the appellant, learned counsel contended that no regular inquiry was conducted in the issue and merely on the inspection report, conducted in the absence of the appellant, he was visited with the 2 major penalties i.e, Recovery & Dismissal from service. It was next contended that another reason taken in the view, while imposing the penalties by the respondents to the appellant, was stated his previous penalties and ill-repute etc. Learned counsel in this regard submitted that previous conduct of a civil servant cannot be made a foundation for imposing penalty in an under process/ongoing disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel further contended that no cross-examination, whatsoever, was undertaken by the appellant upon the Members of the team who carried out inspection of the disputed site. It was next contended that no specific allegation was leveled against the appellant and apparently on account of some grudge nurtured by Mr. Jaan Muhammad Range Officer against the appellant, he (the appellant) was falsely involved in the issue. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for acceptance of the appeal by setting aside both the penalties, as referred before.
3. Conversely, learned Deputy District Attorney, assisted by the departmental representative, opposed the appeal mainly relying upon the reply/parawise comments submitted by the respondents and contended that he (the appellant) was hand-in-glove with his co-accused Muhammad Shahid Forest Guard who both in connivance with each other caused damage to the govt. Property. With these short contentions, learned Deputy District Attorney prayed for dismissal of the instant service appeal.
4. I have heard the arguments from both the parties and perused the relevant record.
5. Admittedly, both the penalties inflicted upon the appellant i.e, Recovery & Dismissal from service are major penalties which have been imposed upon the appellant on the report of Range Forest Officer without conducting any regular inquiry in the scam. It is an established fact that spot- checking, if any, was carried out in the absence of the appellant which was not proper on part of the departmental authorities as he (the appellant) should not have been condemned unheard during the course of inspection. The appellant may have some adverse past service record or ill- reputation but the fact remains that the penalties have been awarded to him in the in-hand issue, therefore, relevance of the facts pertaining to this issue should have been taken care of and not of some previous record/penalties etc. Honorable Apex Court in so many cases has ruled that no civil servant should be penalized by way of awarding major penalty without conducting regular inquiry against such civil servant. Therefore, the summery proceedings taken by dispensing with the regular inquiry which entailed in the major penalty of dismissal from service as well as recovery of Rs, 2,27,170/- is not found tenable. Hence, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned orders passed, by both the competent as well as appellate authority i.e, Respondents No, 1 & 2, are hereby set aside. However, the matter is referred back to the competent authority i.e, Divisional Forest Officer Faisalabad with the direction to initiate fresh/Denovo proceedings against the appellant by appointing inquiry officer or inquiry committee, as the case may be, to hold regular inquiry in the matter. In consequence of the acceptance of this service appeal, the appellant is reinstated into service w.e.f, the date of his dismissal. Fate of intervening period between his dismissal and measuring his charge shall be decided by the competent authority as per outcome of the fresh departmental proceedings.
6. And disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. The judgment in the instant appeal was reserved vide short order dated 13.07.2015, therefore, office is directed to convey copy of the judgment through counsel to the appellant for his information and further necessary action.