Brief facts of the case as gathered from the available record are that appellant Ismat Iqbal, Senior Headmistress, Govt. Girls High School, No, 1 Sheikhupura was proceeded . against under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 by way of show-cause notice Bearing No, SO(E&D-II)-20/2011 dated 02.07.2013 on the following allegations: "You ignored the facts and failed to appreciate the documentary evidence on record and favoured the accused Mst. Madaddas Hameed, District Education Officer (W-EE), Nankana Sahib deliberately."
The appellant submitted her written defence in response to above said show-cause notice but the competent authority/Chief Minister Punjab being dissatisfied with the stance of the appellant passed impugned order Bearing No, SO (E&D-II)2-20/2011 dated 15.04.2014 awarding the appellant minor penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of three years, against which review petition preferred by the appellant was rejected vide impugned order being No, SO(E&D-II)2- 20/2011 dated 15.09.2014. Hence, this appeal is filed on '13.10.2014 on the grounds maintained thereunder.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as far as the allegations mentioned in show- cause notice dated 02.07.2013 is concerned which revolve around an inquiry report dated 08.08.2011 conducted by appellant against three accused namely Muqadas Harneed, DEO(W-EE), Nankana Sahib, Mrs. Talat Javed DDEO (WEE) Nankana Sahib & Allah Ditta, Junior Clerk 0/o DEO(W-EE)
Nankana Sahib but the authority never agreed with the findings of inquiry report and ordered for denovo inquiry, where the inquiry officer also gave more or less same findings except a little change in the findings based upon a changed statement made by accused Allah Ditta. It was further submitted that infect appellant was given task of this inquiry with regard to allegations which can be segregated in following three portions:-
(i) Receiving of illegal gratification from teachers.
(ii) Demanding of Battery for UPS of DEO (W-EE) Office.
(iii) Issuance of illegal orders of Tehmina Rani, GGPS.Chak No, 36 Baroya Sangla Hill.
It is submitted that two, charges out of three were not proved in both the inquiries rather the Charge No, 1 was shown as proved in, denovo inquiry on the basis of changed statement of Mr. Allah Ditta who had earlier given two statements one before the fact finding inquiry officer and 2nd before the appellant as regular inquiry officer whereby he categorically denied the allegation of acceptance of an illegal gratification from any person. The apparent reason of change of statement before the denovo inquiry officer was the registration of an FIR. against him on the basis of complaint made by Mst. Muqadas Hameed, DEO (W-EE), Nankana Sahib. He argued that notwithstanding all these issues appellant conducted the inquiry proceedings purely on merits and with impartiality and recorded findings according to her ability and wisdom and no tinge of mala fide is involved. Therefore, learned counsel prayed for setting aside of the impugned orders.
3. On the other hand the learned District Attorney negated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the documentary evidence and confessional statement of Mat. Talat Javed, DDEO(W-EE), Tehsil Nankana Sahib available on record, prove the allegations without any shadow of doubt, but the appellant being an inquiry officer deliberately or for some ulterior motives ignored the said facts and tried to provide shelter to the accused officers/ officials and in this scenario minor, penalty of stoppage of one increment for three years awarded to the appellant is not only justified but also helpful for maintaining discipline in the civil service.
4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney and have examined the record,
5. The appellant has been charged with the allegation of ignoring the facts and failure to appreciate the documentary evidence on record and favouring accused civil servant Mst Muqadas Hameed DEO(W-EE) Nankana Sahib during the course of inquiry proceedings being inquiry officer. The holding of a regular inquiry was dispensed with within the purview of Section 5(i)
(a) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 by the competent authority. The appellant had denied all such charges and had taken lot of pleas and grounds to contest charges against her but despite that no regular inquiry was got conducted by the competent authority to prove charges against her. Appellant's reply to the show-cause notice and grounds taken thereunder were considered dissatisfactory and she has been visited with punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of three years. The competent authority no doubt can exercise powers vested in it u/S, 5(1)(a) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 and can dispense with the holding of regular inquiry but for exercising such a discretionary power the competent authority has to record reasoning and for that purpose has also to mention the substance available in support of the charges and allegations against the civil servant facing the disciplinary proceedings. If there is no substance available with the competent authority and the allegations and charges on the basis whereof the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated are negated in the reply of the civil servant, the competent authority in such circumstances cannot invoke the provisions of Section 5(1)(a) of the Act ibid. The powers conferred upon the competent authority under the aforesaid provision of law are not unfettered rather the same are very well circumscribed by the law as else exercise of these powers would tantamount to unfettered powers which the framers of law had never intended. The principle of law evolved in DIG Investigation vs. Jaffer Ali's case 20/2 PLC (CS) 787 SC provides illumining guideline on this aspect.
6. There is no cavil to the proposition that an inquiry officer performs judicial functions while determining guilt or innocence of a civil servant facing certain charges qua alleged misconduct, misappropriation, misuse of official authority and negligence in performance of duties. Thus an inquiry officer has to act like a judge while conducting inquiry proceedings and he/she has to remain independent of all sort of influences and extraneous considerations while deciding such guilt or innocence of a civil servant charged with S such allegations. As the law on the disciplinary proceedings against the civil servant remained under continuous process of improvement, it finally took a refined shape in the enactment named as the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The legislature. in its collective wisdom being conversant with the nature of duties to be performed by the inquiry officer or the inquiry committee and the requisite powers to conduct inquiry proceedings had empowered the inquiry officer and the inquiry committee as the case may be with powers of a Civil Court u/S. 11 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 in respect of following three processes of inquiry:--
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents, and receiving evidence on affidavits; and
(c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.
7. The legislature had not felt it sufficient to accord aforesaid Dowers upon the inquiry officer and the inquiry committee but it had also provided under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act ibid that the proceedings under this Act shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV 1860). Thus while conferring these powers to the competent authority and also the inquiry officer and the inquiry committee the law had taken stock of every eventuality and every possible situation likely to arise in these proceedings and for effective, transparent and impartial conduct of these proceedings had inserted Section 11 in the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, which very well prescribes nature, sanctity and safeguards to enable the inquiry officer as well as the departmental authorities to discharge their functions in an independent atmosphere. If an inquiry officer or the inquiry committee is to be held responsible on the grounds which are not made out from the evidence and material collected during the inquiry proceedings and, as an extreme step the inquiry officer or any member of the inquiry committee are made liable for disciplinary proceedings for their independent approach in the inquiry proceedings, the very purpose of the provisions of Section 11 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 would be reduced to a naught.
8. The competent authority in present case had been persuaded by availability of certain documents and misappreciation of the valuable evidence by the present appellant while discharging her official obligations as an inquiry officer, but neither in the order of inquiry nor in all other relevant material such documents were specified, which were of reliable nature having weightage for consideration during the inquiry proceedings. There is no specification of availability of such evidence of an unimpeachable source which was allegedly misappreciated. The examination of record sufficiently shows that not a tinge of main fide or extraneous considerations for recording such opinion in the inquiry report could be attributed to the appellant. For further elucidation and clarity, this Tribunal has examined the record of inquiry and does not find any document carrying nature and characteristic of an independent document having some evidentiary value for the purposes of inquiry, which was allegedly ignored by the present appellant.
It appears that the competent authority had referred to the statements recorded by the probe officer of different officials in support of the allegations out of whom some had resiled during the course of regular inquiry proceedings and did not support such allegations. Therefore, these statements referred as documents do not conform to the definition of documents as prescribed under the Law of Evidence. Clause (b) of Article 2 of The Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 defines "document" as under: "document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter."
9. So far as misappreciation of available evidence attributed to the present appellant, she had given detail of every such statement and had categorically mentioned in her report that as regards the Charge No, 3 against Muqadas Hameed, DEO (W-EE) Nankana Sahib, she had taken a specific plea that the concerned order bears her bogus signatures and on receiving such information she had withdrawn said order and the copy of this order was referred at page 22 of the said inquiry proceedings. As regards Charge No, 2, amounts received for obtaining UPS Battery was depicted as having been received on loan and returned well before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. The statements of Munawar Sultana, Primary School Teacher and other Headmistresses of Primary Schools were directed towards Allah Ditta, Junior Clerk to whom the present appellant as inquiry officer had particularly mentioned that he was prominent in the entire episode and was recommended to be censured as minor penalty. Even, Mrs. Tallat Javed, DDEO whose statement was referred by the Respondent No, 1 in the show-cause notice etc had made statement to the effect that the amount of UPS Battery obtained from different teachers was returned by the accused of that inquiry namely Muqadas Hameed. Therefore, even appreciation of evidence available on record was not flawed with any material irregularity or motivated by some extraneous considerations. Hence, the present appellant had submitted a report according to available evidence.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the present appellant as well as the punishment awarded to her were without any justifiable basis and those are not sustainable. Hence, by accepting this appeal, the punishment awarded to the appellant of stoppage of one increment for a period of three years is hereby set aside.