Muhammad Tufail, ex-Forest Guard, Lahore Forest Division has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, in which he has impleaded the Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Forest Division, `Lahore and-the Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 7-12-1981 and 22-4-1982 be set aside and the appellant be re-- instated in service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Forest Guard incharge Lahore/Ferozepur Road Beat was transferred to Kasur vide Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Forest Division office order dated 13-6-1977 and in his place Maqbool Ahmad was posted. Despite repeated written as well as verbal directions, the appellant did not hand over the charge to Maqbool Ahmad, till Maqbool Ahmad was directed to assume the charge of his beat in the absence of the appellant. Subsequently Maqbool Ahmad assumed the charge and checked his beat and found a large scale daXnage of the forest produce, which was 6 months and three years old. The damage lists were prepared by Maqbool Ahmad and Muhammad Ashraf, Block Officer and they assessed the damage of the produce to the tune of Rs. 16,300. Accordingly the Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Division, Lahore served a charge-sheet alongwith the statement of allega-- tions upon the appellant vide his office letter dated 2-3-1978 and called upon the appellant to show cause as to why one or more of the major penalties prescribed under rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules be not imposed upon him. The appellant submitted his reply dated 18-3-1978 to the charge-sheet which was considered and it was not found satisfactory. As such the matter was entrusted to Mian Mustafa Rashid Ahmad, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer for conducting a regular enquiry as envisaged in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, recorded the statements of a number of witnesses for the prosecution and he also recorded the statements of witnesses produced by the appellant in his defence. After conclusion of the evidence of the parties, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide Office No. 30/SDFO/L, dated 9-8-1973, thereby he held the appellant guilty of the charges. The Divisional Forest Officer issued a show-cause notice to the appellant vide his order dated 4-9-1978 calling upon him to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal be not imposed upon him. The appellant submitted his reply dated 30-9-1978 and was also heard in person on 2-9-1979. The Divisional Forest Officer holding the appellant guilty of the charges, dismissed him from service vide Office Order dated 8-9-1979. A copy of the order was also simultaneously endorsed to the Conservator of Forests. Lahore Circle, Lahore. The Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle, Lahore vide his letter dated 30-9-1979 informed the Divisional Forest Officer, Kasur that since the appellant had not been serving under him as such his order of dismissal from service dated 8-9-1979 was without jurisdiction and illegal. As such the order dated 8-9-1979 was withdrawn. In these circumstances the file was entrusted to the Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Forest Division for decision the Divisional Forest Officer. Lahore for his personal reasons did not want to proceed with the case and he showed his inability to the Conservator of Forests .Whereupon the latter appointed the Divisional Forest Officer, Sialkot Forest Division as an authorised officer vide his Office Order No. 239/E, dated 9th July, 1980. The said Authorised Officer served a show-cause notice upon the appellant on 26-1- 1981, proposing the penalty of dismissal from service and called upon the appellant to show cause against the proposed penalty. The copy of the enquiry report was also sent alongwith the said notice. Since the appellant did not furnish reply to the show-cause notice, the Authorised Officer sent a reminder to the appellant on 15-4-1981, but to no avail. As such the Authorised Officer submitted his recommendations alongwith the record of the case to the authority with the recommendations that the major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon the appellant. This recommendation was made on 27-5-1981. The authority i. e. Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Forest Division issued a show-cause notice to the appellant vide his letter dated 10-6-1981 proposing a penalty of dismissal from service, and recovery of loss amounting to Rs. 16,300 caused to the Government due to damage of trees and plants. The appellant submitted his reply dated 11- 7-1981 and was also heard- in person on 5-10-1981. At the time of personal hearing, the appellant expressed his intention to produce more defence evidences on 6-10-1981 and he did produce certain documents on the said date. The Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Forest Division being the authority held the appellant guilty of the charges and passed an order on 7-12-1981 (Annexure 'O') whereby the appellant was dismissed from service and he was directed to make good the loss of Rs. 16,300 being the value of the trees and plants. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Conservator of Forests which was dismissed vide order dated 22-4-1982. Subsequent to the dismissal of the appellant the Divisional Forest Officer vide letter dated 2-5-1982 served a notice upon the appellant requesting him to pay the amount of Rs. 16,300 up to 20-5-1982. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the enquiry has been initiated at the behest of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Range Officer with whom the appellant had inimical relations because the appellant had filed a complaint against him and had reported to the higher authorities regarding his misdeeds and corruption. It has further been argued that the said Range Officer was a very corrupt officer and in fact he had misappropriated 88 trees standing on the right side of Lahore-Ferozepur Road from within the beat of the appellant, after he had been transferred from the said date. He has also relied upon a news appearing in Daily Mashriq on 13-10- 1977 in this respect. It has also been submitted that the appellant was transferred from his beat on 15-6-1977 and up to that time the trees in dispute were still existing which is proved from the letter dated 23-8-1978 written by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Range Officer. By virtue of this letter the Block Officer was informed that trees were lying fallen on Lahore-Ferozepur Road between 36 K. M. To 51 K. M. And the Block Officer was instructed to get them cut and arrange for their safe custody. The appellant has submitted that this letter in fact relates to the trees which are the subject-matter of the charge--sheet and the statement of allegations served upon the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the charges are not made out keeping in view the evidences on the record and the Authorised Officer and Authorities had mis-appreciated the evidence while bringing home the charges to the accused. In this regard he has particularly emphasized upon the report of the Enquiry Officer wherein it is conceded that damage report was prepared after assumption of charge by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad in the absence of the appellant. It has lastly been argued that the Authorised Officer while proposing penalty vide Annexure `R/N' only proposed a punishment of dismissal from service and did not propose to recover a sum of Rs.
16,300 from the appellant, being the value of the trees and plants. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued on behalf of the respondents that Mr. Muhammad Ashraf the then Range Officer, Kasur has nothing to do with the enquiry initiated against the appellant. However, some complaints were received against Muhammad Ashraf and a news item also appeared in the `Press'. All these allegations levelled against Muhammad Ashraf were enquired into by Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle, Lahore who had submitted his report vide his letter dated 19-3-1978 to Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore highligh--ting all the facts. It has also been pointed out that Muhammad' Ashraf has not absconded from service but retired by the authorities. It has also been submitted that the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer who conducted a regular enquiry and examined a large number of witnesses for and against the appellant and submitted his well --considered report holding the appellant guilty of the charges. It has further been argued that the letter dated 23-8-1978 written by Muhammad Ashraf to Block Officer, Lulliani so relied upon by the appellant is irrelevant for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal because it was just a letter issued to the Block Officer in routine. Consequent upon this letter, the Forest Guard had prepared a list of the fallen trees which only included the trees of variety of `Frash' and `Wanu' only. It has further been submitted that since the appellant was not willing to hand over the charge to his successor Maqbool Ahmad Forest Guard despite the best efforts of the authority, so there was no alternative but to direct Maqbool Ahmad to assume the charge in his absence. It has further been submitted that since the duration of damages was between 6 months to 3 years so it could not be described as a fresh damage because the damage reports were submitted on 20-10-1977.
Seeing the duration of the damage, it can safely be inferred that this damage was caused by or with the connivance of the appellant. With regard to the contention of penalty to recover the loss it has been submitted that it has been legally imposed upon the appellant. It has lastly been argued that the enquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and charges have rightly, been held to have been proved against the appellant.
4. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record carefully. The crucial issue for our determination in the present case is whether the alleged large scale damage, which is stated to be from 6 months to three years old, caused of the trees and plants along Lahore Ferozepur Road as mentioned in the damage list Annexure R/B, was caused by or with the active connivance of the appellant during his tenure of posting in the said beat, It is a common case between the parties that the damage list Annexure `R/B' was prepared by Maqbool Ahmad, successor of the appellant, in the absence of the appellant, without joining the appellant in the proceedings. The record shows that the damage lists were prepared by Maqbool Ahmad and were duly forwarded by Muhammad Ashraf, Range Officer on 20-12-1977. It is in evidence that these lists were prepared by Maqbool Ahmad and at that time the appellant was neither absent nor associated during the preparation of the said lists. The plea of the appellant is that he was present in the range office but was deliberately not joined in the said important work of enumeration and preparation of the list in a mala fide manner, in order to misappropriate the forest produce. I see much force in the arguments of the appellant. The plea for not associating in the proceedings has been examined by the Enquiry Officer and in his report he has stated that there were certain flaw in the damage list, prepared by Maqbool Ahmad after the assumption of the charge in the beat because the said list was neither dated nor was prepared in the presence of the appellant. However, the Enquiry Officer has observed that according to the prevailing circumstances it was not possible to associate the appellant during the preparation of the list as he was reported to be absent from duty and was also not receiving and acknowledging any order of his superiors. I do not agree with this observa--tion of the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was absent from his duty, I am fortified in my view by Annexure `R/I' which is an order to the respondent Divisional Forest Officer, the relevant extract therefrom is re--produced hereunder :- "I have gone through the case carefully. From the statement of Messrs Muhammad Rashid Forest Guard, Imam Din Choukidar and even of Iftikhar Amin, Junior Clerk and Allah Ditta, peon it is proved that Muhammad Tufail, Forest Guard did not remain absent from his duty. As stated by him, it is also correct that I found him available in the Range Office Kasur during my visits to Kasur Range.
Needless to say that this order pertains to wilful absence from duty and for his misconduct in not acknowledging the correspondence and other matters contained in the charge-sheet Annexure `E' which was issued to him on 1-3-19 78. 'In view of this order of the Divisional Forest Officer I fail to understand as to how the Enquiry Officer in his report Annexure `R/H' has stated that the appellant was absent from duty and was not receiving any order from the superiors. Had the notice been issued and served upon the appellant calling upon him to be present at the time of enumeration and preparation of the damage list, and if he had not joined, then of course, the presumption would have been drawn against him and I would have held that the Department or Maqbool Ahmad was justified to prepare the list in the absence of the appellant. Since the appellant was never associated in these proceedings and the charge was not validly taken from him by his successor, so it is not fair to hold him responsible for the said damage caused to the forest produce owned by the Government. Since there was evidence on the record that the relations between Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Range Officer and the appellant were not straight and they were at daggers drawn with each others then in these circumstances a duty was cast upon the Divisional Forest Officer to be more careful in assessing the damage. 1t was the duty of the Divisional Forest Officer to procure the presence of the appellant by coercive measures or to serve him with a notice by a registered post before assessing the damage in accordance with the law.
Alternatively the Divisional Forest Officer could also get the list prepared by a team headed by a Senior Officer to assess the damaje, at the spot. The enmity between the Range Officer and the appellant is proved from the record when we find that he had filed a complaint against him to the higher authorities and even a news item appeared in "Daily Mashriq" dated 13-10-1977 imposing allegations of theft of forest produce etc., against the said Muhammad Ashraf. Record also shows that Muhammad Ashraf had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur and had got registered case under section 506, P. P. C. On 4-12-1977 at Police Station, City Kasur against the appellant on the allegations that the appellant had criminally intimidated him in his office. The matter did not rest there. The appellant bad to file a petition for quashment of the case pending for trial before the Assistant Commissioner, Kasur which came up for hearing before his Lord--ship Mr. Justice S. Rehman's who was pleased to quash the proceedings vide his order dated 20-5-1978. The contention of the appellant that Muhammad Ashraf was inimical towards him, is also established from the perusal of Annexures A, B and C attached with the file and the press-cutting Annexure `D'.
Even this enmity is admitted by the respondents because they had got the matter enquired into by holding a regular enquiry. The report of the Enquiry Officer is Annexure `RIC' which was filed with the written statement filed by the respondents. The plea of the appellant throughout the proceedings and even before the service of the charge-sheet was that' the Range Officer to connivance with his.
Subordinates was causing damage to the forest produce and was selling it away unauthorisedly for personal gain after his transfer from his beat and that there was no such damage to the forest till his transfer. In this connection reliance ' has been placed at Annexure ---E' appended with the appeal which is also admitted by the respondents. In Annexure `E' is a letter written by Muhammad Ashraf, Range Officer to Block Officer, Lulliani on 23-8-1977. In this letter Block Officer has been informed that `Kikar' trees were lying fallen along Lahore-- Ferozepur Road between 36 to 51 K M.
And he was apprehensive of their theft. The Block Officer was also directed to entrust them to some surety. This letter was marked to Maqbool Ahmad on 23-8-1977. The Block Officer had directed the Forest Guard to prepare the list of Kikar Trees lying fallen at that place. The respondent has not produced any record to show that the trees which were subject-matter of Annexure `E' were not the same which find mention in the damage list appended with the appeal and. The written statement.
This letter, has admittedly been written after the transfer of the appellant. In these circumstances I hold that the Enquiry Officer or the Departmental authorities have not been able to prove the allegations against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. In view of this analysis I hold that the appellant cannot be held responsible for the damage caused to the Forest produce and the charges levelled against him are not proved.
5. In view of the detailed analysis, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is accepted.
The appellant shall be re-instated into service but the period from the date of his dismissal to that of re-instatement shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. There will be no order as to costs.