Succinctly, the appellant, was posted as a Sub Divisional Officer Civil at Taunsa, Head Works and took over the charge on 16.07.2012.
2. Prior to his posting, in the year 2010, the Taunsa Barrage was hit by a heavy flood with heavy discharge of 10,85,601 cusec, reportedly which damaged the barrage badly and due to this loss, the Technical Experts opined to change the design of the barrage, which was acted upon, allegedly affected the loose stone apron, which was reported by the appellant after assuming the charge, at the relevant time. It is said that the heavy damage had already been occurred before appellant's posting there.
3. He (appellant) immediately reported through a Canal Wire dated 04.01.2013 to all the heads including the Chief Engineer, D.G. Khan, The Superintending Engineer, Muzaffargarh Canal Circle Multan and The Executive Engineer Taunsa Barrage.
4. On the report of the appellant a committee was constituted in the Department which recommended for immediate repair/ restoration work and resultantly an estimate was also prepared to that extent.
5. As per appellant, since he highlighted the matter and brought to the notice of the high ups then they took the notice. Prior to this there were also recommendation for the change of the design of the Barrage. As per appellant drum beated by him to invite the attention allegedly infuriated his high ups who were involved in change of design, in the disguise of rehabilitation process of the Taunsa Barrage.
6. The Respondent No. 3 constituted a committee to probe into the matter, but one officer, namely, Malik Shujat, who was appointed as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, who reviewed the actual design of the Taunsa Barrage in the name of rehabilitation for which he was neither authorized nor competent to do so and that was the sole reason to justify the unauthorized changed by punishing the appellant making him the scapegoat and he was illogically held responsible of the whole damage on the basis of fake, illegal and false report and a regular inquiry was initiated under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, against the appellant and others and constituted an inquiry committee comprising of the Khawaja Mukhtar Ahmad, Superintending Engineer, Mailsi Canal Circle, Multan - Convener and the Khalid Bashir, Executive Engineer, Fordwah Canal Division, Bahawalnagar - Member. The competent authority also issued charge sheet alongwith the statement of allegations to the appellant on the following charges:-- i. Mis-regulation of Barrage Gates No. 28 to 58 caused damage to the stone apron in the period from 5th June, 2012 to 22nd June, 2012 and from 16th July to 25th July, 2012, resulting discharge intensity from 162% to 350% i.e.. much beyond the permissible limits and in discharge of criteria specified in the O&M Manual, while the remaining Barrage Gates on the left were kept closed. The damage/settlement of stone apron to the above reason was detected during annual closure of January, 2013. ii. Wrong manipulation of sophisticated electric system for gate operation on 24.03.2013 resulted sudden opening of Barrage Gates from No. 32 to 61 to the full height, generating flow intensity downstream of Barrage of more than 600% above permissible limits. This maloperation of gates caused damages to stone apron in the bay No. 32 - 60, with severe damages in bays No. 54-57 involving complete damage to (i) surface flow; and (ii) sub surface flow protections of the barrage in those days. iii. Failed to perform responsibilities as Sub-Divisional Officer Incharge of the Barrage and lack of control in the operation of gates according to the Operation & Maintenance Marfual, resulting colossal financial loss to the Government besides endangering safety of the Barrage."
The appellant submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegations. The inquiry committee submitted his report holding that the appellant and his co-accused were guilty of the charges. Resultantly, the appellant was awarded a major penalty of dismissal from service vide, order, dated, 01.01.2016, and the appellant being aggrieved preferred a departmental appeal before the Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore, who partly accepted the appellant's appeal and modified the major penalty of dismissal from service into "forfeiture of past service for a period of five years" vide, order, dated, 28.10.2016. Hence, this appeal was filed on 08.11.2016.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned orders suffer from infirmity, irregularity and illegality and are not sustainable in the eye of law. No proper inquiry was conducted, neither any witness was called for by the department nor the appellant was allowed to produce his defence inspite of written requests which was against the principles laid down in the case law 1997 SCMR 1543. The appellant was not responsible regarding the change of design of the Taunsa Barrage against which a detailed report had already been submitted by the experts regarding effects of change of design which were altogether ignored by the departmental representative and inquiry committee. Which were themselves not clear regarding the discharge of order as alleged in the charge sheet in light of dissenting note recorded by one of the Member of the Inquiry Committee; so, the appellant was not responsible of any act of omission as put up in the shape of charge sheet. That after the inquiry, the department itself got inquired the matter, through a High Power committee comprising of five of the Chief Engineers and three of the Superintending Engineers who were the Technical Experts available in all over the Punjab and the said committee unanimously did not held the appellant guilty and its opinion regarding the loss of Barrage shows, that the appellant pointed out the loss through Canal Wire immediately after assuming the charge and was made a scapegoat because there was a loss due to change of the design of the Taunsa Barrage being a Junior Officer.
8. Conversely, the learned District Attorney and the departmental representative oppose the contentions, arguing that the impugned orders were quite legal and passed in accordance with law. So, the same do not warrant any interference which are legal, the appellant has failed to point out any error an irregularity. There was sufficient account of evidence against the appellant regarding the misregulation that the charge has been proved against the appellant. The appeal is devoid of any force. There is no substance favouring the appellant regarding the contentions made in the memorandum of appeal.
9. Arguments heard, and the record perused.
10.The record reflects that the original Taunsa Barrage was commissioned in 1958 and served the nation for a long period of time. The staff deployed on this Barrage became highly expert and dependable for Operational and Maintenance purposes which was an asset not only for Taunsa Barrage but for the whole Irrigation .Department. It was imperative that at the time of change of design, the knowledge of this expert staff must have been updated in view of the newly changed design and their knowledge and skill must have been enhanced to regulate the same because the electrical system which was imported and installed should have been understood by the said staff.
The system was unique in the country but was unfriendly with the serving Engineers. There were number of Barrages in the country and the none of them possess such a controlled system as installed in the Taunsa Barrage.
11.Prior to this, the gates of the original Taunsa Barrage used to have been operated manually and the staff had full control over the Barrage but after the installation of advanced technology no proper training was imparted to the staff. Adoption of unique system dispensed with the services of the highly trained staff gave rise to hard situation. In our country when any new or advanced technology is imported' then the same is left on the mercy of unexpert and untrained staff which become a cause loss of heavy loss. If a trained staff for the operation of a project is not available then its success become impossible. A special provision in this respect should be created to trained the staff so that the operation of the project can easily be made by the skilled staff. It was a-shocking to note that there was only one person, namely Mumtaz who was a Foreman on work charge basis who could operate the Barrage at that time. This issue was reported and raised by the appellant with a request to employ a special staff for the purpose but till today the request is unattended. In case of any emergency, it could result in a heavy loss to the Barrage. I am unable to understand, why the trained staff was not made available at such a huge benefical project serving for the country? It also depicts from the record that there had been a number of employees who were desirous to learn the skill and knowledge for the operations of the Barrage but they were kept away and the only a Foreman on work charge basis was deployed who was not ready to impart any knowledge to other staff members and was ruling like a king. This object of the higher officers are out of understandable. This advanced electrical system for operating the Barrage, demands periodical and immediate trained staff for management and repair with the passage of time which was lacking and resulting into creation of number of problems.
12.The record reflects that apart from the Canal Wires No. 401, dated 04.01.2013, No. 2400, dated 24.02.2013 (reminder) No. 103. 148W, dated 26.4.2013. The appellant also was to institution a Writ Petition No. 693/2014 in which the respondents were directed to submit comments within two weeks.
13.It is the stance of the appellant, that, the charge sheet was the reaction of the Canal Wires and the writ petitions through which he raised the hue and cry to awake the higher ups regarding the poor situation of the Barrage.
14.As per the appellant, the river flow was drifting fast towards the left on the down stream. The drift was around 2.5 to 3 Kilometer to main stream and had created huge Bela in front of the Barrage. The river was just at distance of 600 feets from "MAGISIAN BRANCH" which was at the last barer to save the Tehsil, Kot Addu, and it appeared that some waves may have caused drifting of the river towards the Kot Addu.
If the situation remains the same, the Kot Addu may disappear from the surface and the situation is still same and continuing.
15.After the change of design of the Barrage in the name of rehabilitation of Taunsa Barrage, Respondent No. 3 constituted a committee to probe the matter under the Chairmanship of Malik Shujat who reviewed the actual changed design in the name of rehabilitation for which he was not authorized or competent and that was the sole reason to justify the unauthorized change.
16.I have gone through the inquiry Report No. 3696-We/231.E/inquiry, dated 04.11.2014 prepared by the inquiry committee in which it recommended imposition of major penalty of reduction to a lower post and pay scale for a period five years upon the appellant under Para 4(b) of PEEDA Act, 2006. It is pertinent to mention here that one of the Committee Member Ch. Khalid Bashir, Executive Engineer also recorded note: Signed with the remarks that excess discharge intensities must be elaborated/calculated by the DR Members 01.11.2014 Meaning thereby that the inquiry conclusion, findings and recommendations were not final; conclusive but were subject to the above mentioned condition. .I have perused the file and there is no evidence regarding the fulfillment of the above condition till the decision of the competent authority. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the said competent authority did not take the notice of this condition and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service to the appellant while disagreeing with the recommendation of the above committee. It reflects that the inquiry report was still incomplete and I am afraid to hold that the punishment awarded on the incomplete inquiry report is justified and legal.
17.Apart from this, consequent the approval of the competent authority vide notification NO.SO(Floods)VII02/2006, a Committee was constituted for inspection of settlement of downstream loose stone apron/inverted filter and checking seepage and piping action on countryside of left marginal (LMB)RD 1 + 500 to 46+000 of Taunsa Barrage comprising as under:- {{TABLE}} Chief Engineer Irrigation Research Zone LahoreConvener Chief Engineer Irrigation Multan Zone, Multan.Member Chief Engineer Irrigation F/bad Zone,F/badMember Chief Engineer Irrigation, Planning & Review Zune, LahoreMember Chief Engineer Irrigation D.D.
Khan, D.G. Khan.Member {{TABLE}} The TORs of the committee for downstream loose stone . apron/inverted filter were as under:-- i. To ascertain the causes of damage to downstream loss stone apron and inverted filters. ii. To recommended necessary remedial measures, to check the damage on temporary as well as permanent basis.
TORs of the committee for checking seepage and piping action on country side of Left Marginal Band (LMB) RD.1 + 500 to 46 + 000 of Taunsa Barrage were govern as under:-- i. To examine the issue in the light of report of IRI based on different field/lab tests. ii. To recommend an appropriate solution by considering the option/recommendations of IRI report on temporary as well as permanent basis. The committee may associate any other expert in the field.
The Committee shall submit his report alongwith specific recommendations by the 31.12.2014.
The Taunsa Barrage was inspected by the Committee on 02.01.2015 to examine the conditions of loose stone apron, inverted filter, down stream of main wire of Taunsa Barrage and Left Marginal Band in said research. The following officers were also associated to contribute their expert opinion:
1. Mian Abid masood, SE Muzaffargarh, Canal Circle, Muzaffargarh.
2. Ch. Asghar Hameed, SE Development Circle, Faisalabad.
3. Mohammad Shahid Principal Research Officer (Hydraulics) Irrigation Research Institute Lahore.
It was observed that the damage was occurred in loose stone apron only in front of Gate No. 11, 20, 31, 35, 45, 53 of main Barrage, whereas, the remaining loos stone apron in front of remaining gates remained intact which indicated that the damages were not done due to reasons of mis- regulation of gates. It may be due to some other reasons which may be as under:
(i) sub soil flow condition.
(ii) due to local settlement because of loss filled material below apron of loose stone.
There is also available at Page 5, Paragraph H, sixth line: That the loose material could not withstand the eddies formed due to creation of Hydraulic jumps and swirl/Vortex Formation on it. The energy created due to formation of Hydurlic jumps, could not , be dissipated due to inadequate provision of energy dissipation devices in. Stilling Basin which are usually frication blocks and shoot blocks constructed on lower part of glacis of wires from the study of drawing of the Stilling Basin.
It revealed that both the above mentioned devices are not appearing on the drawing and explained by the Executive Engineer Taunsa, Superintending Engineer, Muzaffargarh stating these devices are not constructed at site. The committee was of the unanimous consenses that settlement of loose stone apron and damage to Filter Blocks may be caused due to:
(i) Loose filled material under stone apron
(ii) Non provisions of energy dissipating devices i.e. frication and shoot block at the lower part of the downstream glacis.
It is pertinent to mention here that the competent authority/Secretary Irrigation also accompanied the committee on 03.01.2015 at the Taunsa Barrage alongwith the Chief Engineer, PMIU and the Deputy Director Project Management, Office Barrage, Lahore. The Deputy Director, Head, PMO Barrage explained: that the sub wire was constructed to mitigate the pressure generating due to sub flow and in the past the Hydrolic jump was not forming at the toe of the downstream glacis of the Barrage and the stilling basis of the Main wire was also redesigned by adopting the forth type of USR for construction of wire. In the initial design of the main Barrage, the Stilling Basin at the adequate arrangement of energy dissipation in the shape of friction blocks upstream of the end cill.
The committee recorded the reasons of damages occurred in loose stone apron and inverted filter downstream in front of bays. The Deputy Director, Head PMO, Barrages explained that it was due to mis-regulations of the gates of main wires of the Barrage. The Committee presented the sounding probing plan downstream of different gates of Barrage to the Secretary in which the loose stone apron and inverted filter down steam of the gates of main Barrage have also been damaged which were not mis-regulated by the field staff, and also gave certain recommendations that after detailed discussion, arriving at conclusion and perusal of design of stilling basin the Committee unanimously recommended that:--
1. The loose stone apron and filter blocks be restored at the earliest.
2. The design of stilling basin may be got reviewed by deputing some independent designer.
18. In light of the above findings and recommendations, it reflects that the actual design of the Taunas Barrage was reviewed and changed in the name of rehabilitation under the recommendation of sub-committee under the Chairmanship of Malik Shujat giving rise to the complication as pointed out by the Members of the Inspection Committee of the Taunsa Barrage by the experts of the Irrigation Department across the Province. They have not pointed any fault regarding the mis-regulation of the Barrage on the part of the appellant. In this view of the matter, this case seems to be case of misreading and non -reading of the above evidence.
19.The respondent, Chief Secretary while deciding the departmental appeal also observed in his order dated 28.10.2016 to the effect, "however the contentions raised by the petitioner Ch. Mohammad Athar are convincing which require due consideration. Even otherwise, the penalty imposed upon him do not commensurate with the quantum of guilt as the same is also observed by the Hearing Officer and partially accepted the appeal by reducing the major penalty of dismissal from service into forfeiture of past service for a period of five years."
20.I am of the view that the Departmental Authority was also convinced by the contentions of the appellant and modified and reduced the penalty from dismissal from service to "forfeiture of past service for a period five years".
21.A MAP OF THE CROSS SECTION Through Wire available on the record at the Page 27 showing intensities D/S of the Taunsa Barrage during 24.03.2013 giving period of appellant's posting (Mohammad Athar, SDO) reflects, that the permissible intensity was 250 c.f whereas, the intensity of site was 37.92 c.f. which was less than the permissible intensity. The record of the Daily Log Books of the Taunsa Barrage dated 24.03.2013, also depicts, as recorded in the discharge river column with discharge per foot run 32.32, 59.23 (available at page 30 - 53), did not show the excess discharge, refuting the charge sheet particularly which were not only analogous to the period of others but much below than their maximum values showing no fault or inefficiency on the part of the appellant. However, this charge was also dropped by the Inquiry Committee.
22.As for as the question of mis-regulation of the Barrage by the staff and the appellant as a supervising authority is concerned, to prove his innocence the appellant moved an application on 22.05.2017, during the adjudication of the appeal that he wants to get summon the Convener of the Committee namely Mr. Waqar Hussain presently posted as a Chief Engineer, Bahawalpur, as a witness in this case because, he was a convener of the Committee and had given the opinion in this respect.
23.Both of the sides were heard on this point and the application was found plausible as the Convener of the Committee has also given certain findings, So, he was summoned as a CW. He appeared and his statement on Oath was recorded which is reproduced as under: "A committee was constituted by the government under the convener-ship of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Research Zone, Lahore and the member of the committee was the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Multan Zone, Multan, The Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Faisalabad Zone, Faisalabad, The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Planning & Review Zone, Lahore and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Dera Ghazi Khan. The terms of reference of the Committee for d/s loose stone apron/ inverted filter are as under: To ascertain the causes of damage to D/S loose stone apron and inverted filter. To recommend necessary remedial measures to check the damages on temporary as well as permanent basis.
The TORs of the Committee for checking seepage and piping action on country side of Left Marginal Bund (LMB) RD: 1+500 TO 46+000 of Taunsa Barrage are as under: To examine the issue in the light of report of IRI based on different field/ lab tests. To recommend an appropriate solution by considering the options/recommendations of IRI report on temporary as well as permanent basis.
The committee may associate any other expert in the field.
The committee was to submit its report alongwith specific recommendations by 31st December, 2014. This notification was issued by Secretary Irrigation Department. On this I being the convener of the committee wrote a letter a to the Chief Engineer Irrigation Dera Ghazi Khan having No. 1888-92 dated 29.12.2014 in which it was requested to him to prepare the following papers to be presented before the committee on 2nd January 2015 Schedule for site visit. Prepare fresh sounding/ probing plan of the effected/ damaged site. Prepare sounding/ probing of the upstream side of the barrage including right side divide wall. The rate of settlement of apron/ damaged block may also be prepared and keep ready for perusal of the inspection team.
Record of opening of gates/ regulation of barrage for the period when damages occurred.
On this the committee went to the site on 2nd January, 2015. After visit report was prepared which was submitted to the Government on 09.01.2015 wherein it was discussed that the sounding and probing were observed by the field staff in the years 2013 & 2014 as mentioned above, the inverted filter was damaged in the years 2013 & 2014 whereas loose stone apron was damaged in the year 2012 in front of different gates. Whereas, the remaining loose stone apron in front of remaining gates remained intact which indicates that the damages were not due to the reason of mis- regulation of gates. It may be due to some other reason. The other reasons may be: Due to sub soil flow condition. Due to local settlement because of loose filed material below apron of loose stone.
The committee presented the sounding/ probing plan downstream of different gates of Barrage to the Secretary in which the loose stone apron and inverted filter downstream of gates of main barrage have also been damaged which were not mis-regulated by the field staff.
On Court questioning and cross-examination as under deposed:-- C.Q. What do you mean by field staff? Ans. S. D.0, X.E.N, Sub Engineer.
C.Q. The appellant including in the member of the field staff at that time?
Ans. Yes the appellant was including in the field staff. C.Q. When the appellant was posted there?
Ans. Since 2013.
C.Q. Whether the appellant was involved in the alleged mis-regulation?
Ans. No. This damage was not due to the mis-regulation.
C.Q. Whether the appellant as posted when the said barrage was constructed?
The barrage was constructed in 1954 but it was remodeled in 2005-2009 by another organization known as Head P.M.O Barrages.
C.Q. Do you think being the senior that the appellant is competent enough to regulate the effectiveness of the barrage competently and the lapses and damages cause to the barrage relates to the appellant?
Ans. The damages does not relates to the lapse by the appellant.
C.Q. Has the loss been stopped? Ans. No, the loss is still continuing.
The objection of the appellant is that he was issued a show-cause notice under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 read with Draft Rules for Barrages, 2007, which had no sanctity in the eye of law, without the approval of the Government, was also considered. By taking guidline from the judgment 2010 PLC (CS) 924:
(c) Police Act (V of 1861) ---Section 12---Instruction/rules/policy issued by the Inspector General of Police without approval of the Provincial Government-Validity-- Such instructions/rules would not be valid and would have no legal sanctity Long practice of department to follow such instructions /rules conflicting with parent statue of rules could not remain operative, but must be ignored--No one would be obliged/ to obey such directions/ instructions/departmental practice--Principles [pp.930,931]F. G & J Qayyum Nawaz Khan's case 1999 SCMR 1594 ref Siddiq Akbar's case 1998 SCMR 2013 rel.
In light of the above settled law, if the department has opted or followed the draft rules in the proceedings at any stage, the same are not of any legal consequence. It is a settled law that any proceedings when initial order is contrary to law the whole proceedings are void. Reliance is placed on 2009 SCMR 339.
24.In light of the above facts and circumstances i.e. the issuance of statement of allegation to the appellant on the basis of mis-regulation, wrong manipulation of souphicated electric system for gate operation on 24.03.2013 and failure to perform his responsibility as SDO have thrashed in light of the evidence available on the record.
25.The show-cause notice was issued without the fulfillment of the condition imposed by the Member of the inquiry committee Ch. Khalid Bashir, Executive Engineer.
26.The Charge No. 1 of mis-regulation was not been proved as per inspection report No. 11- 18/PRO(H)/843-C, dated 09.01.2015 probed by the five engineers in presence of the Secretary Irrigation and S. E. Muzaffargarh, S. E. Faisalabad and Principal Research Officer, Research Institute Lahore as cited and detailed above.
27.In light of the documentary record available at page 27-28 to 53, there was no excess of discharge of water during his period which was maximum recorded as 37.37 c.f. This charge was also dropped by the inquiry committee.
28.In view of the canal wires No. 401, dated 2013 at page 11, canal wire No. 2400, dated 24.02.2013 and 103/84W, dated 26.04.2013, filing of the appellant's Writ Petition 693/2014, this charge has become also lifeless and showing that the appellant had done level his best to inform the Higher Authority regarding the condition of the Barrage well in time. The competent authority disagreed the recommendations of the committee without assigning any reason and enhanced the punishment without giving any notice and hearing to the appellant. The departmental appellate authority have also ignored the report of the Committee of five of the Chief Engineers who opined that the damage were not done due to mis-regulation of gates and field staff was not held responsible for that loss. The documentary evidence showing the less and permissible discharge in the tenure of the appellant was also not considered. As per statement of the C.W Mr. Wawar Hassain, Chief Engineer, who was a convener of the Committee who appeared as a C.W. when put a specific question. Whether the appellant was involved in the alleged misregulation? The answer was No. The damage was not due to the misregulation. Again answering another question, he also replied that the damages does not relates to any lapses by the appellant. Replying on another question was the loss has stopped. He replied no, the loss is still continuing.
29.There is no solid, concrete and cogent evidence against the appellant bringing whom to guilt.
It reflects that he has only been made a scapegoat just to show that someone has been punished.
The impugned orders find no corroboration from any corner to held liable the appellant guilty of the misconduct as given in the charge sheet. He was only punished on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Moreover the respondent, Chief Secretary also did not considered the fresh evidence which had come to light while deciding departmental appeal which was in the shape of inspection report in which it was held that the damage was not due to reason of mis-regulation of gates, it may be due to some other reasons and gates of the main Barrage have also been damaged which were not mis-regulated by the field staff. This additional evidence had come on record on 09.10.2015 while the departmental appeal was decided on 28.10.2016. While deciding the departmental appeal if any additional evidence had come on record showing the true facts and picture of the circumstances of the damage of the Barrage qua the charge sheet, then the same should have been considered particularly which was not available at the time of order passed by the Competent Authority i.e. Secretary.
30. It transpires that the regular inquiry was not conducted in independent and impartial manner which was mandatory as enunciated 1993 SCMR 1543, 1984 PLC (CS) 61, 2007 SCMR 92. The inquiry committee failed to record the statement of relevant witnesses, The appellant had been punished without procuring any evidence to prove his inefficiency and misconduct beyond any shadow, of doubt. Reliance is placed on 2013 PL (CS) 928, 2011 PLC (CS) 522. The impugned orders reflect that the respondents passed the same as a result of incorrect exposition of law and without following the proper procedure of conducting the inquiry which seems to be against the principles of natural justice, equity and the respondent did to appreciate the case of the appellant in its proper angle which has caused miscarriage of justice. It is an established principle of law that justice shall not only be done but it should appear to have been done. This rule was not adhered to in case of appellant. It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that discretionary powers conferred on the Government should be exercised reasonably and subject to existing essential conditions, required for exercise of such powers which the scope of law. All judicial, Causi Judicial and administrative authorities while exercising mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction must follow the rule of fair exercise of powers in a reasonable manner and must ensure dispensation of justice in the spirit of law. Seven instruments that are most useful in structuring of the dictionary powers are open plans, open policy statement, open rules, open findings, open reasons, open precedents and fair informal procedure. Power to exercise discretion would not authorized such authorities to act arbitrarily, discriminately, and malafidely. They have to act without any ulterior motive as enunciated in 2001 PLC (CS) 1017.
31.What has been discussed above, the impugned order 28.10.2016 suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence on record and in light of the above discussed evidence, the appellant was found innocent. There is no chain of evidence connecting the appellant with the charge as alleged against him. So, the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law and is hereby set aside.
32.Appeal accepted in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.