ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Muhammad Alamgir Khan, ex---Statistical Computer, Bureau of Statistics, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Planning and Development Department, Lahore and the Director, Bureau of Statistics, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order of termination of his service were. f.
26-7-1981 vide Memo. No. BS (Admn.) 10(4)72/111490-93 dated 28-7-1981 by respondent No. 2 be declared mala fide, illegal, without any lawful authority with costs and the appellant be reinstated from the date of termination of his service with all back benefits.
3. Brief history of the case is that the appellant was employed as Statistical Computor' in the Bureau of Statistics Lahore. It was reported on 26-7-1980 to the Deputy Director by the Assistant Director under whom the appellant was working that he (appellant) grossly misbehaved with the Assistant Director in his office room. The explanation of the appellant was called which was found unsatisfactory. The appellant was suspended by the authorised officer with the approval of the authority from 6th August, 1980 vide order No. B S (Admn)-l0 (49)177.
Dated 6-8-1980. He stopped attending the office soon after his suspension. Hence, charge-sheet and statement of allegations, were despatched to him at his given address, through registered A D. Post which was received back undelivered with the remarks by the Postal Authorities that the premises were locked. Again charge-sheet and statement of allegations were despatched under registered A. D. At his two addresses (residential and.
Business address) to the appel--lant. The charge-sheet and statement of allegations were received back from both addresses with the remarks of the Postal-Authorities that the premises were locked and addressed could not be contacted. The appellant was again asked to attend the office at both of his addresses through registered A. D. Posts but the same were received back from both the addresses with the remarks of the Postal Authorities .As mentioned above. Enquiry Officer was also appointed. The efforts of the Bureau of Statistics to deliver him the charge-sheet and statement of allegations were not fruitful. The Bureau of Statistics deputed two NPS-17 Officers, to visit his residence after closing hours, for delivering him the charge-sheet and statement of allegations. Thus he received these documents on 5-11-1980. On the request of the appellant a new enquiry officer was appointed as desired by him in place of the enquiry officer appointed already. Instead of complying with the directions of the Enquiry Officer, co-operating with him for holding of the enquiry, the appellant started accusing him of mala fide intention on flimsy grounds. The appellant's request for changing of the Enquiry Officer for second time was turned down. The appellant used all types of delaying tactics and finally the enquiry proceedings, were started in January. 1981 It was partly attended by him and then he stopped attending the enquiry. The appellant was again asked to attend the enquiry. Enquiry was re-started on 2-2-81 but the appellant again aban--doned the proceedings on 10-2-81 on his own accord submitting an applica--tion on 10-2- 1981 to the Authorised Officer with baseless facts stating that Enquiry Officer had told the appellant that there would be- no enquiry proceedings till further orders. Again a registered A. D: latter was despat--ched to him directing him to call on the Enquiry Officer immediately so as to continue the enquiry proceedings which was also received undelivered with the remarks of the Postal Authorities that the addressee is not available at his home. During the intervening period he visited the office on 22-2-1981 but refused to receive the above- mentioned letter. He was again asked to see the Enquiry Officer in connection with the enquiry proceedings but he did not care for the same. All efforts to persuade him to resume the enquiry proceedings failed.
Consequently, a notice was published by the Enquiry Officer in the Pakistan Times and Daily Mashriq. In response to the Press notice the appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 18-4-1981. Instead of continuing with the enquiry proceedings, he left the room of the Enquiry Officer and did not attend the enquiry proceedings later on. The appellant, thus, absented himself from enquiry proceedings on his own accord. The enquiry was completed by the Enquiry Officer. He was held guilty of charges levelled against him. A show-cause notice was served upon the appellant through registered A. D. Post and through special messenger. These were received back undelivered. The appellant refused to receive the show-cause n6tice, even, from the special messneger. The show cause notice was published in the Pakistan Times and the Daily Mashriq dated 4-7-1981.
It was clearly mentioned in the show--cause notice that the appellant might present himself before the competent authority viz. Director, Bureau of Statistics for personal hearing, on 25-7-1981, if he so desired. The services of the appellant were terminated vide Director, Bureau of Statistics order dated 28-7-1981 were. f. 26- 7-1981. He made an appeal to respondent No, I on 22-9-1981 but no reply was' given to him. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant's service has been terminated by the authority which was not competent for the same. Proper enquiry was also not held as the appellant was not afforded opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses and he was not allowed to fully associate himself with the enquiry. Second show-cause notice and personal hearing was not given to the appellant. Keeping these facts in view the services of the appellant have been terminated unlawfully and the appellant needed to be re-instated in service. Controverting these arguments the learned 'District Attorney submitted that the parawise comments submitted on the appeal of the appellant by the respondents be considered and gone through which nullify the arguments put forwarded by the appellant's counsel. He concluded that the appellant has been properly proceeded as per requirements of the rule. He was provided due opportunity to defend himself and his services were terminated lawfully and on merits.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney and have also carefully examined the record produced by the Department. Brief history of the case given under para 3 above gives all the facts and details of this case. We are satisfied that the appellant was properly charge-sheeted. The respondents made all efforts to deliver him the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations. The enquiry wets conducted properly. Even, the Enquiry Offcer was changed on the request of the appellant. The appellant also partly associated with the enquiry and cross-examined the witnesses. The enquiry officer provided him time and again the opportunities for association in the enquiry but he attended the enquiry partly and he abandoned the enquiry proceedings on his own accord. Thus all the requirements of the rules were observed and the enquiry was completed properly. The show-cause notice was served to the appellant. On his refusal to receive the same from the special messenger, the show-cause notice was published in the newspapers, wherein he was also asked to appear for personal hearing before the competent authority if so desired and he was also directed to obtain the copy of the enquiry report from the Bureau Office during office hours. After observing all the formalities the services of the appellant were terminated as he was found guilty of gross misconduct. . We have seen that his services were terminated 6y the competent authority as notified vide Notification No. S. O. R. III-(S&GAD) 13-11/76 (ii) dated 29-12-1978. His service record shows that the appellant was held guilty of gross misconduct during 1975 as well whereupon his services were terminated. He was, however, re-instated in service as per Punjab Service Tribunal's decision on technical grounds. It is apparent that the appellant has not improved and is habitual of committing gross misconduct We agree that the charges levelled against him stands proved and he is guilty of misconduct.
6. Keeping the above facts in view we conclude and hold that there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such There will be no orders as to costs.