AHDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Bashir Ahmad ex-Forest Guard, Forest Department has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 , wherein he has impleaded the Con--servator of Forest, Multan Circle, Multan anti the Divisional Forest Officer Multan Division, Multan as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 9-2-1982 of Divisional Forest Officer, Multan and appellate order dated 13-4-1982 of Conservator of Forest, Multan Circle, Multan, be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with effect from 9-2- 1982.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Bashir Ahmad, ex-Forest Guard, while working in Pirwala Forest Area, alongwith Messrs Muhammad Sharif Forester and Muhammad Younus Forest Guard were found prima facie responsible for the damage of the Forest in their area as they bad made an effort for illicit removal/sale of timber and firewood for their personal interest resulting in great loss to the Government. The appellant, alongwith the co-accused officials mentioned above, were served with a show-cause notice dated 17-1-1982 by Divisional Forest Officer, Multan Forest Division, Multan. The reply to the show-cause notice was considered. The matter was got examined through S. D. F. O., Pirwala East. The replies of Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Forester and the appellant were considered unsatisfactory while that of Mr. Muhammad Younus, Forest Guard was found as satisfactory. The appellant and Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Forester were also heard in person on 1-2- 1982, by Divisional Forest Officer, Multan Division, Multan but they could not satisfy the authority and penalties were imposed on them by D. F. O., Multan Division, Multan, vide his order dated 9-2-1982 wherein appellant was removed from service and recovery of Rs. 7,740.40, the loss sustained to the Government was imposed to be recovered as arrears of land revenue; while Mr. Muhammad Sharif Forester was censured and his one annual increment without future effect was stopped. The appellant made an appeal to the Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan which was rejected vide his order dated 3-4-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parities. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case where corruption charges were levelled against the appellant, Therefore, it was necessary that a regular enquiry should have been conducted against the appellant as already held in so many cases by this Tribunal. But, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (S & D) Rules, 1975. Hence the proper procedure as required under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules has not been followed and the appellant was not given opportunities to defend himself by holding a regular enquiry. Furthermore the impugned order contained some other charges and allegations which were not subject-matter of the show- cause notice. Thus the impugned order dated 9-2-1982 of D. F. O., Multan Forest Division, Multan was passed on some of the charges and grounds which were not disclosed in the show-cause notice and the appellant did not put his defence against these charges and he was thus prejudiced in the matter. Thus, the impugned order is unlawful. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that D. F. O. Has acted himself as Authorised Officer' and `Authority' which was not in accordance with the provisions of the law. It was further argued that duties of the Forest Guard and Forester have been defined at page 10, para. 2.8, Item (vii) and page 9. Para. 2.7, Item (x) of the West Pakistan Forest Manual, 1964, Vol II, respectively. According to which, actually the Forester was responsible for the forest loss for which the appellant has been held responsible. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Forester who had more responsibility than the appellant in performance of protection duties of the Forest as a Supervisory Officer, has been given minor punishment i. e. Censure and stoppage of one year annual increment without future effect, while the appellant has been removed from service and also recovery of Rs. 7,740.40 was ordered against him. Thus, the appellant has been treated discriminatively and has been punished harshly and unnecessarily. The learned counsel for the appellant also made a reference to the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and submitted that no connivance of the appellant has been proved with other co-accused officials and if a perusal is made carefully to the parawise comments submitted by the respondents, it is clear that the charges have not been established against the appellant and he is innocent in the matter. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that actually there was no damage to the forest as alleged by the respon--dents. The damage reports were issued by the appellant in time. No consideration was given to these damage reports submitted by the appellant. If these reports would have been taken into account, there was no loss to the Government. Similarly, in case of firewood shown short against the appellant ; according to the challans 3,250 cft. Of fire--wood was carried from compartment No. 80/E to the Sale Depot against 2,859 cft. In the forest. Thus, there was excess firewood in the stock and not short as attributed against the appellant. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted, this has all happened due to the reasons that regular enquiry was not held ; even the complainant was not examined, and the appellant was not given opportunities to defend himself ;the impugned orders are one-sided and the charges have not been proved against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following authorities in support of his argu--ments given above :-
(1) 1982 PLC (C. S.) 102
(2) 1982 PLC (C. S.) 764
(3) 1982 PLC (C. S.) 692
(4) PLD 1954 Lab., 299
(5) 1981 PLC (C. S.) 194
(6) 1982 PLC (C. S.) 795
(7) 1982 PLC (C. S.) 119.
5. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney submitted that this was a matter regarding damage of the forest which was under the direct supervision of the appellant. Thus, the charges against the appellant could not be strictly classified as corruption, but came under the purview of inefficiency and misconduct. These charges related to inefficiency in performance of his routine duties. Before service of show-cause notice, the charges were gone through, examined and were found prima facie established and, thus, service of show-cause notice was perfectly valid and lawful. The show-cause notice was complete in all respects and also the impugned order passed have no deviations from the charges given in the show-cause notice and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order of D. F. O., Multan Division, Multan has not been passed keeping in view the charges in the show-cause notice, is not convincing. It was further argued by the learned District Attorney that the misconduct for which the appellant has been punished, was direct, responsibility of the appellant and not of the Forester as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. Furthermore, the damage reports were issued by the appellant pre-dating these ; after it came to the notice of the appellant that he was being proceeded against, for the damage of the logs in the forest area under his control. As far as shortage of firewood is concerned, the account was thoroughly checked and shortage was detected in the stock for which the appellant was directly responsible. It was also submitted by the learned District Attorney that according to the Delegations of Power Rules of the Forest Department, Divisional Forest Officer is the '!Authority' and also the 'Authorised Officer' for the accused officials and the appellant. Thus, the proceedings carried out by him in this case are in order. Concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney submitted, that the appellant has been proceeded lawfully and has been punished correctly.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record so produced by the respondents. We have perused the show-cause notice issued to the appellant and also the impugned order passed by the D. F. O., Multan Division, Multan. We are satisfied that the show-cause notice was issued, after it was prima facio --established against the appellant that he had made act effort for illicit removal/sale of timber and firewood for his personal interest. Before the impugned order was passed the report and comments of S. D. F. O., Pirwala East, were considered by the authority and the appellant was given opportunities to defend himself. The impugned order also shows that the appellant was held responsible for those shortages only which the appellant could not justify on checking and consideration of his defence.
As the matter was examined thoroughly at various levels, the appellant was given chances to defend himself ; hence, the purpose of the regular enquiry has been met in this vase and no injustice has been done with the appellant and he has been punished correctly for the damage which, was proved against him.
7. We have gone through the duties of the Forester and Forest Guard, as laid down in the West Pakistan Forest Manual, Volume II, 1964. No doubt, according to the duties laid down in the said Manual, the appellant and the Forester, Muhammad Sharif, co-accused are responsible for inefficiency and misconduct as held by the competent authority while' imposing punishment upon them., but we feel that keeping in view the duties to be performed by both of the officials for the supervision and protection of the forest, the punishment awarded to the appellant is unduly severe and discriminate ; keeping in view the length of service of the appellant i.e. 21 years.
8. Keeping the above analysis in view, we direct that punishment of removal from service of the appellant be varied to that of stoppage of one annual Government without future effect and also "censure to the appellant as was ordered in case of co-accused, Mr. Muhammad Sharif, Forester.
But, as per page 10, para. 2.8 (vii) of the West Pakistan Forest Manual, 1964, Vol. II, the Forest Guard is responsible for regularly patrolling all the forests in his beat and see that no illicit damage to the forest is caused ; the appellant is thus, alone, responsible for the loss caused to the Government from the forest area in his beat and Rs. 7,744.40 Government loss will also be recovered from the appellant. The appeal of the appellant is accepted to the extent as mentioned above and the impugned orders, in the case of the appellant, are modified to the extent indicated above. The period from the date of removal from the service to that of the re-instatement of the appellant will be treated as leave of the kind due.
There will be no orders as to costs.