' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Muhammad lqbal Haidri, Ex-Junior Clerk (Reader to Naib- Tehsildar Rabwah), has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act of 1974 against the impugned order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division dated 13th October, 1980 and that of the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang dated 3rd May, 1980 whereby the services of the appellant were terminated.
2. He has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang and the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, as respondents.
3. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be reinstated in service. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant remained posted as Reader to Tehsildar, Chiniot, for the period from 26th February, 1979 to 5th March, 1980 and failed to consign the decided files in the V. R. R. The Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, took notice of this fact and issued him a show-cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 requiring him to show cause as to why any of the penalties given in the Rules should not be imposed on him. The appellant submitted his written explanation on 29th April, 1980 and was personally heard by the Deputy Commissioner on 3rd May, 1980. As the Deputy Commissioner did not find his explanation satisfactory he terminated his services vide his impugned order. His appeal with the Commissioner also failed who vides his order dated 13th October, 1980 dismissed his appeal. Hence the present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have also attended to the arguments advanced by the learned D. A. Assisted by the representative of the department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that no regular enquiry was conducted into the matter by the learned Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the order of his termination of services was a nullity in the eye of law. It has been further argued that it was incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner to refer a formal decision before proceeding further under rule I while issuing a notice under rule 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant was working on two posts in addition to his original post and also performing a lot of miscellaneous duties which made it impossible for him to consign the files in time to the V. R. R. In this way he tried to cover up his fault on the pretext of heavy work with which he was burdened. It has also been prayed that even in his views that he did not consign the files in time the punishment so awarded to him was severe.
5. On the other hand the learned D. A. Has relied on the arguments given in the parawise comments of the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, and has submitted that the act of the appellant was gross misconduct as for full one year he delayed this consignment. Nobody can be allowed to deal with the Government record in this negligent manner. It was further added that the work of consignment by the appellant was started very late when he was transferred and posted as Reader to Naib-Tehsildar Rabwah. With regard to the legal objection that no regular enquiry was conducted in this case it was stated that the same was not necessary as the competent authority was fully empowered to invoke rule 6(3) (a) & (b) and thus no illegality was committed.
6. We have given our careful consideration to the argument advanced by the parties and found that only relevant rule in this case was rule 6(3) and not 6(2) and the competent authority took action in accordance with the law. In a matter like this it was not necessary to hold an enquiry as the negligence of the appellant was clearly proved by the actual fact that 59 files submitted during the period from May 1979 to March, 1980 were consigned to V. R. R. On 19th April, 1980 after a delay of almost a year, and that for only when he received the show-cause notice. The appellant was heard in person by the competent authority and his case was given full consideration by the learned Commissioner which he was once again heard by him. We are not persuaded by the plea of the appellant that this lapse on his part occurred due to heavy work as the main duty of the appellant was only to consign decided files in time so that litigant may know the fact of their cases and proceed with further remedies so provided under the law to them. The learned Deputy Commissioner could not ignore this important aspect of the case and was fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that in case of negligence and carelessness and irresponsible Civil Servants were not required to continue in service "I as the Government was likely to earn a bad name for their miserable performance. We have carefully perused the grounds of facts taken by his two superiors and find that the conclusion arrived at by them were correct and based on good reasons.
7. In view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the two orders and maintain the same. The result is that we proceed to dismiss this appeal as being without any merits.
However, there will be no order as to costs.