' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN) -Nazi r Ahmad, ex-Forest Guard in the department of Forests has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the orders dated 18th February, 1981 and 7th May 1981 passed by the respondents with the prayer to set aside the same and to re-instate him in service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Forest Guard in Lal Sohara Plantation in Bahawalpur Forest Division was transferred to Kuddwala Beat in Bahawalpur Forest Division and left his charge on 16th November 1980. One Muhammad Hanif Forest Guard of Lal Sohara Plantation made an application to the respondent No, 1 making allegations against Nazar Hussain Forester on 21st November, 1980. This application was the outcome of an ugly incidence in which Muhammad Hanif was given beating on 14th November, 1980 by some miscreant who had illicitly cut some trees from the areas under the charge of Muhammad Hanif. Muhammad Hanif was under impression that Nazar Hussain Forester was responsible for his beating. The appellant in his application stated that in case no action was taken by the respondent No, 1 he would make an application against him and SDFO, also to the Governor. He did fulfil his threat by making an application dated 13th December, 1980 to the Governor which is on the record as Exh. D. L In this way the appellants conduct also came under inquiry when Respondent No, 1 proceeded against Nazar Hussain Forester, as he being his immediate subordinate. The appellant was suspended on 30th November, 1980 and was served with a show-cause notice on 3rd January, 1981 by the respondent No,
1. He submitted his reply to the respondent, who after holding an enquiry removed the appellant from service on 18th February, 1981. His appeal to the Respondent No, 2 also failed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the DFO himself i. e. Respondent No, 1 to defend his own order and have perused the record of the case with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has first of all taken legal objection with regard to the enquiry by submitting that it was in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in the E & D Rules of 1975, inasmuch as that the show-cause notice given to the appellant was without the statement of allegations. Secondly it was submitted that Respondent No 1 has himself proceeded to take action against the appellant without passing any order with regard to the appointment of Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee. It was pleaded that in case Respondent No, I considered to proceed himself into the matter it was obligatory to pass an order for the said purpose. In this way the status of the Respondent No, I have been challenged as he arrogated himself the power of Authorised Officer when he himself was the authority.
4. With regard to the merit of the case pertaining to the damage in compartment No, 206, it was submitted that damage report was submitted by the appellant himself on 14th November, 1980 in which Allah Diwaya, Allah Bachaya, Noor Muhammad sons of Qadir Bakhah caste Sehu of Chak No, 35/BC were mentioned as the culprits and thus it cannot be said that the appellant in any way had concealed the affair. The fact of the matter was that these people were habitual offenders and notorious criminals, therefore, the higher officers in the Department were afraid to take action against them. In this way the appellant has pleaded that he being very low grade civil servant, he was not in a position to assume the role of prosecutor when the higher officers were reluctant to do so. With regard to the damage in compartment No, 210 it has been submitted that due to non- existence of fire line, and due to this misunderstanding wood was cut, which was regularly auctioned later on. With regard to the allegation that why this was not mentioned in Form B the appellant submitted that this was the duty of the Block Officer to do so. The very fact that no action was taken against the appellant in this matter for full one year will prove that digging the past by the D. F.
0. Was nothing but sheer act of discrimination to save his own skin. With regard to compartment No, 215 it has been submitted that entries of the same have been mentioned on 29th September, 1980 and 16th November, 1980 and the compensation was received vide receipt No, 84/298 and 90/298. In this way the remaining wood was used by the authorities for official work as such the appellant was not guilty of any misconduct. The end it has been pleaded that it is irony of fate that the appellant who was a young person with clean and unblemished record of previous service has been dismissed from service while other persons who were found equally careless by the authority but were awarded minor punishments.
5. On the other hand the D. F.
0. And learned District Attorney have submitted that the appellant was the actual villain of the piece and cannot escape from the liability when he himself signed the damage lists, therefore the punishment so awarded to him was justified.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the plea so raised by the parties. We will first of all advert to Exh. D I the complaint made by Muhammad Hanif Forest Guard dated 20th December, 1980 before the Governor of the Punjab through Complaint Cell Assembly Chambers Lahore. In this complaint the persons complained are D. F.
0. Respondent No, 1 and Hafizullah A. D. F.
0. Lal Sohara. There is no mention of the appellant in that complaint as such we are fortified to presume that in fact Respondent No, 1 became alarmed when he Will confronted with the threats made out by Muhammad Hanif Forest Guard (after the unfortunate episode of his beating) which he later on ventilated the same through his application dated 13th December, 1980 to the worthy Governor. However we find that at a later stage the appellant also becomes the subject of complaint of Muhammad Hanif despite the fact that he did not name the appellant as one of the culprits before the Governor in his earlier, application and laid all the blame at the door of the Respondent No, 1 and his next Subordinate Officer Hafizullah. Whatever the case may be we also cannot ignore that the enquiry conducted in this case by Respondent No, 1 who assumed the role of Authorised Officer as well as competent authority which he legally could under the Delegation of Powers Rules, it was revealed that the appellant if not dishonest was definitely an inefficient person.
We have fully looked into the relevant documents and after hearing the D. F.
0. At length we cannot completely exonerate the appellant from the charge of inefficiency.
However no misconduct is proved. We also cannot remain oblivious of the circumstances that the appellant was a new entrant with hardly few years of service whereas Nazar Hussain his immediate superior, was required to show more vigilance and efficiency as compared to the appellant in the conduct of laying reports, keeping the record and taking action against the delinquents. What we find is that this Nazar Hussain has been lightly left whereas the appellant has been visited with the extreme penalty completely ignoring an established fact on the record that his name did not find mention in the complaint of Muhammad Hanif before the Governor of the Punjab. The competent authority should have taken into consideration the above factors and should have treated him at par if not better than Nazar Hussain who was also found inefficient in the said matter. It is also interesting to note that it was found by the Respondent No, 1 that Mahabbat Ali Forest Guard of the same area was dishonest and corrupt official yet he was punished with stoppage of annual increment due on 1st December, 1980 without future effect and was only warned to be careful. If Mahabbat Ali was given this treatment despite the abovementioned observation on record which are both admitted in the parawise comments as well as incorporated in 8 the punishment order, it would be an act of clear discrimination if we allow the punishment so imposed upon the appellant to be maintained.
7. In the light of the above discussions we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be squarely met, if we vary the sentence so passed against him and impose the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect plus censure. The result is that we accept the appeal to the above extent by varying the punishment of dismissal from service to the stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and entry of censure in his service record. He would stand re-instated in service from the date of his said removal and will be entitled to all back benefits.