ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER) - Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Butt.` Ex-Laboratory Attendant, Mayo Hospital, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Dr. Rafi-ud-Din Qureshi, Deputy Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Dr. Badar-ud-Din Chaudhry, Medical Superin--tendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Dr. Ijaz Ahmad, Assistant Registrar North Surgical Ward, Mayo Hospital, Lahore and Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha, Junior Medical Officer, Cardiac Surgery Ward, Mayo Hospital, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be quashed and set aside, and the appellant be re-instated in service with all the back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Butt, was working as Laboratory Attendant in Mayo Hospital, Lahore. The appellant while on duty on the night between 20th and 21st April, 1981 committed insubordination and did not obey the orders of Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha, Junior House Surgeon, Cardiac Surgery Department who required the appellant to take blood of a serious patient for immediate investigation from clinical laboratory. The appellant rather insulted the said Doctor in the presence of the other staff members of the hospital. The appellant was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore vide his order No. 16628 dated 17-5-1981 for misbehaving with Dr. Muhammad Ali Chatta and neglecting the official duty. A formal enquiry was ordered against the appellant. Dr. Ijaz Ahmad, Senior Registrar, North Surgical Ward was appointed as Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry against the appellant. However, the appellant despite repeated warnings did not participate in the enquiry and consequently there being no other alternative, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry as such.
The appellant was served with a show-cause notice dated 26-8-1981. He was also heard in person on 3-10-1981 and having been found guilty of the charge, he was removed from service vide Deputy Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore order No. 30918/MH, dated 6-10-1981. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore. He was heard in person by the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore on 26-11-1981 and his appeal was rejected vide his order No. 35295/MH, dated 30-11-1981. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel of the appellant argued that the appellant has been victim of malice and prejudice on the part of the respondent No. 2 as appellant had served a legal notice to him regarding filling up the post of a Laboratory Assistant in which the appellant was ignored and another person was appointed. The appellant made numerous applications against this appointment and also a legal notice was served to the respon--dent No. 2 as mentioned above which annoyed him and all actions against him including removal of the appellant from service is a result of this prejudice. Furthermore the report of the Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha for misbehaving was misconceived and false, actually the appellant was abused by the said Doctor and also an attempt was made to beat him which was reported by him to the Medical Superintendent accordingly. Thus he was falsely implicated in this affair which has no legs to stand. Furthermore he had made a request for changing of the Enquiry Officer which was not acceded to. Thus the enquiry has been conducted ex parte and he was not given opportunities to defend himself and cross-question the witnesses. Furthermore he was removed from service by respondent No. 1 who was not competent to pass the orders of his removal from service. The appellant's counsel concluded that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed on these grounds being, illegal as well as without any facts. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments by submitting that the copy of enquiry report, Annexure `DD' & `EE' attached with the appeal clearly show that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer Dr. Ijaz Ahmad is complete in all respects, based on concrete evidence of witnesses. This enquiry report was also supplied to the appellant wherein according to para. 22 of the enquiry report the charge of negligence of duty and misconduct or misbehaviour with the Doctor on duty, stood proved against him. It is -clear from the enquiry proceeding that the appellant was given opportunities to participate in the enquiry to defend himself but the appellant knowingly and deliberately chose not to participate in the enquiry. He was also heard in person by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Thus he was not condemned unheard and all the opportunities were provided to him in accordance with the rules. The learned District Attorney has also submit--ted that the complaint Annexure `N' so relied upon by the appellant against Dr. Chattha is a result of an afterthought which was in fact presented on 22-4-1981 after unexplained delay of two days which is fatal to this case. The learned District Attorney further argued that according to the relevant Delegation of Powers Rules of the Health Department, the D.M.S. Is the authority competent to impose major as well as minor punishment, as such, according to rule 2 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, he is the authority and the Authorised Officer for the appellant. Thus the impugned order is within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 and has been passed by him competently.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the parties and also have gone through the relevant file and complete record of this case. This case was heard on so many days. First the appellant argued this case through his father, and then, he made an application that he wanted to utilize the services of a lawyer. The case was fixed for re-hearing to provide full justice to the appellant. Since the appellant's counsel has argued that the charge of misconduct has not been proved against him so we proceed to deal with this aspect of the case first. The allegations against the appellant were that while posted as Laboratory Attendant, he misbehaved with Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha and neglected his duty in that when the said Doctor requested him to take the blood of a patient namely Mrs. Sarfraz for testing, he abused him and criminally intimidated him. During the enquiry 3 witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer, Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha, Dr. Joseph and Dr. Tariq Malik, to prove the allegations against the appellant. The statement of Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha clearly shows that he summoned the appellant for the purpose of carrying out the required investigation of the patient Mrs. Sarfraz who was in serious condition after the operation and eras lying in intensive care unit on the advice of Dr. Col. M.A.
Cheema. The appellant did not come for the said purpose. Result--antly Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha asked the staff nurse on duty to ring up the laboratory. The telephone was picked up by the appellant, when the said staff nurse heard music and informed the Doctor. When Dr. Chattha came on the line he enquired the identity of the person on the other side to which the appellant informed that he was there in the laboratory. The said Dr. Chattha requested him to come to the ward for the purpose for taking required sample for the purpose of investigation, but he refused on the pretext that he was alone in the Laboratory but when Doctor enquired about the hue and cry and the music in the Laboratory, the appellant replied that his friends were taking tea and it was none of his business to enquire about it. This resulted in exchange of hot words and the appellant abused the said Doctor. After this incident Dr. Muhammad Ali Chattha tried to contact the D. M. S. On telephone but could not succeed. Then he decided to walk down to his residence. In the way he met Dr. Tariq Malik and Dr. Joseph. Dr. Chattha told them the details of the incident, whereupon Dr. Joseph suggested him to visit the Laboratory first and all the three Doctors went there and met the appellant. The appellant in the presence of Dr. Tariq Malik and Dr. Joseph attempted to attack Dr. Chattha and also used filthy language. Thereafter they left the Laboratory and Dr. Chattha reported the matter to the higher authority. This statement of Dr. Chattha remained thus uncontroverted because the appellant did not attend the enquiry and did not cross-examine the witness. The Enquiry Officer also recorded the statements of Dr. Tariq Malik and Dr. Joseph who fully corroborated Dr. Chattha. These witnesses were also not cross-examined by the appellant because he boycotted the enquiry voluntarily and without any justifica--tion. Since there is no rebuttal on behalf of the appellant of the evidence on record, so we have to conclude that the said statements are to be believed in toto, as such the charge of misconduct is proved against the appellant beyond doubts.
6. With regard the plea of the appellant that the D. M. S. Was not competent to pass the impugned order, we can safely refer to the Health Department's Delegation of Powers Rules wherein it is clearly mentioned that D. M. S. Is the Authority competent to impose major and minor punishment on the civil servant of the status of the appellant. Thus respondent No. 1 is deemed to be the authority and the authorised officer within meaning of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Thus we hold that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority and as such, we over rule the objection of the appellant. The argument of the appellant that the order has been passed against him due to malice, is without any force. There is no evidence on record to prove or show that the M. S. Respondent No. 2, was inimical towards the appellant or had any sort of grudge as alleged by the appellant. Moreover all the proceedings against the appellant were initiated and concluded by the D. M. S. Respondent No. 1, who also removed him from service. We have also checked his previous service record which is not satisfactory. While he was working in the Pathology Laboratory, located in Children Ward, complaints were made against him of the similar nature for listening to the tape-recorder with loud voice during duty hours and also he was not attending to his duty properly. Thus he was transferred vide D. M. S. Order dated 26-7-1979 from Children Ward Laboratory to Clinical Labo-- ratory. He was also warned vide D. M. S. Order dated 13-10-1979 wherein his reputation regarding his work and conduct was found unsatisfactory and was asked to improve his work and conduct according to the entire satisfaction of the Incharge of the Department, failing which the discipli-- nary action would be taken against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. This all proves that he was an unwilling worker and did not enjoy good reputation.
7. Keeping in view the above analysis, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.