ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mian Khizar Hayat, Divisional Forest Officer, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals, Act, 1974 and has impleaded Punjab Province through the Secretary to Government of Punjab Forestry Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Punjab, Lahore as respondent. He has prayed that the impugned order dated 23-12- 1981 where by recovery of Rs. 1,802/10 has been ordered be quashed.
2. Brief history of the case is that Mian Khizar Hayat was working as Divisional Forest Officer at Attock in the year 1976-77. There were excessive rains and storms. As a result of which many buildings of Forest Department caved in and others were rendered useless. The Government specially sanctioned funds for, the repairs of these rain-affected buildings. The funds were placed at the dis-3osal of Divisional Forest Officer, Attok for carrying out necessary repairs to the rains- affected buildings of the Forest Department to 'save them from further deterioration. The appellant got the buildings repaired from the contractors in the year 1977. Later on in the year 1978. Umar Hayat a Zamindar of District Campbellpur (now Attock) made an application to the Director Anti-- -Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore pointing out various irregulari--ties and cases of misappropriation of the Government funds on the part of appellant. As a result of probe into these allegations, the appellant was charge-sheeted. The Special Judge Anti-Corruption Rawalpindi was appoined as an Enquiry Officer to hold a departmental enquiry against the appellant by the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab. Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department (Authorised Officer) vide his letter No. S. O. E-1/2-)1/78 dated 18-5-1980. As a result of enquiry by Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf, Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer, Anti-Corruption Rawalpindi he was found guilty of illegal payments made to the contractors: The enquiry report was referred to the Authorised Officer. After going through it and ascertaining the facts of the case he held that Khizar Hayat the appellant, negligent in the performance of his duties and mis--conduct resulting in the loss of Rs. 1,802,10 to the Government. Thus he was imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs. 18,02.10 and was warned to be careful in future vide Government of the Punjab Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department Order' No. SO. E. I/2-II/78 dated 23-12-1981 The appellant made a representation against these orders on 29-12-1981, which has not been decided though the prescribed period of 90 days has elapsed, Hence this appeal.
3. The learned counsel fox 'the appellant argued that the appellant has not been given opportunities to defend himself. He has not been heard in person. He has been subjected in this case to departmental harasaments inasmuch as his promotion of grade 18 was being held time and again. The appellant took the matter to the High Court. Thus the respondent became annoyed and the appellant was given irrepairable harms. When the enquiry was held against him, the enquiry officer did not permit the appellant to engage a counsel thus opportunities. Were not provided to him for his defence. The Measurement Book No. 63 which confirms the basis of charge- sheet and enquiry was not produced/shown to him. A loss of Rs. 1,802.10 to the Government on the basis of allowing 5% contingency to the contractor was actually a premium allowed to the contractor and this was sanctioned and approved by the competent authority ; thus the payment made was in order and the appellant could not be held responsible for these payments. Further-- more the bills in question were, scrutinised by all officers including Conser--vator of Forest and the Audit Officer of the Forest Department. The vouchers being according to the departmental rules the payments made were legal, correct and according to the rules. Moreover, the authority and Authorised Officer was same in this case, which was unlawful. The counsel for the appellant concluding his arguments submitted that under these circumstances the recovery order be set aside. On the other hand, the learned -District Attorney-controverted these arguments by saying that these recoveries were detected as a result of complaint made by a Zamindar of Cambellpur (Now Attock) District to the Anti-Corruption Department. They probed into the matter. As a result of which he was charge-sheeted and proceeded against by an independent Enquiry Officer i.e. Anti- Corruption Judge, Rawalpindi and thus there is no malice in this case on the part of the offices of the Forest Department. . The enquiry by the Anti-Corruption Judge was held according to the rules and the appellant participated in the enquiry and he was afforded all the opportunities as required under the rules. He was also provided with the necessary documents for his scrutiny and the enquiry report' submitted by the Enquiry Officer reveals that the enquiry was complete in all respects as per rules. Tie appellant was drawing and disbursing officer responsible for making these payments the bills were scrutinised by him and the payments were made under his orders.
Hence he is fully responsible for these irregular payments made to the contractors. . The learned District Attorney concluded that recovery order against him is perfectly lawful and in order.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put for--ward by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned District Attorney and have also consulted the record very carefully. We agree with the learned District Attorney that this matter was taken up and proceeded by the Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab against the appellant in the year 1978 on a complaint made by Umar Hayat a Zamindar of District Cambellpur (Attock). Departmental enquiry was also conducted by an independent Officer i.e. Anti-Corruption Judge, Rawalpindi thus there is no malice on the part of the respondent or officers of the Forest Department. The Enquiry Officer had provided all the opportuni--ties to the appellant. He conducted detailed enquiry into the allegations levelled against him. Hp held the appellant guilty of charges Nos. 1., 2, 3, 5 and 6. According to which the appellant was held responsible for the illegal payments to the contractors to the tune of Rs. 3,81.0.11.
The detailed enquiry report alongwith the record was submitted to the Authorised Officer On scrutiny of the enquiry report and going through the facts of the case the Secretary to Government of the Punjab Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, acting as Authorised Officer, held the appellant responsible for recovery of Rs. 1,802.10 only for illegal payments for allowing 5 % contingencies for construction of Forest Guards quarter at Jabbi Kisran, repairs of out houses at Fateh Jang Range Office and the repairs of Range Office and Range Officer's residence at Fateh Jang, and was also warned to be careful in future. For the rest of illegal payments Forest Ranger, Block Officer and Forest Guard under whose supervision the actual work had been carried out were prima facie held responsible and orders for departmental action were initiated under the rules, ibid, separately. As for allowing payment of 5% contingencies to the contractors is concerned, it is noteworthy that if a reference is made to the Conser--vator of Forests, Rawalpindi Circle, Rawalpindi letter endorsement No. 3633/B dated 29-4-77, the appellant was directed to undertake these works or repairs subject to the following conditions.:
(1) Provision made in the scheme will not be exceeded.
(2) The cost will not exceed the current schedule of rates sanctioned for building/roads works and repairs.
(3) The old unserviceable material will be auctioned by auction.
Thus the current schedules of rates were to be followed for making payments for repair of these buildings. Provision of contingency is made in the estimates for unforeseen items.- This provision is only for estimate purpose and cannot be made basis for payment to the contractors. Payment to the contractors is made according- to the work actually done by them' and measured at site. Thus the payment of 5 % contingency made to the contractors was illegal and it has., teen correctly concluded by the Enquiry Officer as such. The Enquiry Officer/Authorised Officer 'made him correctly responsible for making these illegal payments, being drawing: and Disbursing Officer. So far as his contention that he was not allowed to engage a lawyer for defending him before the Enquiry Officer, suffice it to say that under rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency 'and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the lawyer is not permitted to appear before the Enquiry Officer in case of departmental, enquiries. Relevant rule is reproduced here under for sake of convenience : "No party to any proceeding under these rules before the authority, the authorised officer, an enquiry officer, an enquiry committee or appellate authority shall be represented by a lawyer.
The contention of the appellant that he has been prejudiced in his defence because he was not allowed to inspect the measurement book No. 63 is not plausible. The fact remains that during the enquiry docu--mentary evidence was produced in the form of documents DW-2/A, DW-2/B and DW-2/C, which are the bills for construction/repair of these works duly sanctioned and paid under the appellant's orders. These bills are extracts from the measurement book No. 63 which are relevant for the present case. As such in the presence of these documents it -is not correct on the part of he appellant to say that he was, not aware of these allega--tions against him or that he has been pre-judiced in his defence. So far as his contention that he has been committed unheard because he was not given personal hearing by the Authorised Officer, we are afraid this argument is not maintainable. We have already held in Appeal No. 219/1620 of 1982 in case of Mohammad Ahmad Afghani, Senior Civil Judge, and it is not at all necessary for the Authorised Officer to hear the accused in person in case he passes the orders imposing a minor punishment. Rule 7 (8) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 is very clear on the issue which does not lay down that the civil servant will be heard in person by the Authorised Officer while imposing a minor punishment.
The said rule is also produced as under for ready reference :- "On the receipt of report of Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee the Authorised Officer shall determine whether the charge has been proved. If it is proposed to impose a minor penalty he shall pass orders accordingly."
As regards Secretary to Government of the Punjab Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, acting as Authorised Officer, this is perfectly in order as laid down in the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, rule 2 (1) (c). Thus we find that the appellant was fully associated in the departmental enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, he was given all the opportunities to defend himself.
Similarly the Authorised Officer has dealt with appellant's case according to tie rules. We conclude that the punishment awarded to the appellant is correct, lawful and in order.---
5. In view of the above analysis we hold that there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order' as to costs.