Niaz Ahmad Akhtar, ex-Patwari, Irrigation Department has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. He has impleaded the Executive Engineer, Burala Division, Faisalabad and the Superintending Engineer, Lower Chanab Canal East Circle, Faisalabad as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 9th June, 1980, passed by Respondent No. 1 and dated 11th March, 1981, issued by Respondent No. 2 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated with full back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was made by three persons namely 1. Mohabbat son of Rajada,
2. Sh ahadat son of Rajada and 3. Noor son of Karmali that the appellant has accepted Rs. 80 from them as illegal gratification or changing their "wari" from night to day. The appellant was proceeded against accordingly. The charge-sheet along with the statement of allegations was served upon the appellant.
The written reply of the charge-sheet was submitted by the appellant. An enquiry officer was appointed in the case and enquiry conducted. On receipt of the enquiry report the Executive Engineer, Burala Division Faisalabad heard the appellant in person on 31st May, 1980. Only the charge of corruption was proved against him. Thus, his services were terminated by the Respondent No. 1 vide his order No. 5521-26/29 EP, dated 9th June, 1980. The appellant made an appeal to the Superinten--ding Engineer, Faisalabad which was also rejected vide his order dated 11th March, 1980. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued by submitting that the charge-sheet is defective and vague as there was no person of the name of Shabadat son of Rafi from whom the illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 80 has been alleged to have been received. Thus, this charge is absolutely false and wrong. The enquiry held was also one sided as the appellant boycotted the enquiry due to lack of confidence in the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer should not have conducted the enquiry when it was given in writing by the appellant to the enquiry officer at the time of enquiry, on 10th March, 1980, that he did not want to get the enquiry conducted from him.
Thus the appellant has been condemned unheard. No show cause notice was given to the appellant as required under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, for awarding major punishment. The Executive Engineer was not competent authority to remove him from service as an Authorised Officer. Thus the impugned order passed against him is defective and unlawful. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted the argu--ments by saying that parentage of Shahadat mentioned as Rafi instead of Rajada in the charge-sheet is a typing mistake. He further argued that the Executive Engineer is the authority in the case of the appellant under the Delegation of Powers Rules and the impugned order passed is correct and lawful.
5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by both the counsel and has also gone through the service record of the appel--lant and the enquiry file as well. I agree with the appellant's counsel that the charge-sheet and statement of allegations dated 15th November, 1979, are defective and vague. These do not show the period during which the appellant remained absent and the instances showing his care--lessness to the discharge of his official duties and of being disobedience to his superiors. Although it is specified therein that the appellant received an illegal gratification of Rs. 80 from Shahadat son of Rafi for Changing the Wari and also demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500 from the same Zamindar, yet the record shown that there is no person by the name of Shahadat son of Rafi. In fact one Shahadat son of Rajada has been examined as witness during enquiry and there is nothing on record to show as to how he was introduced in the enquiry. If it had come on the record during the enquiry that there was no person by the name of Shahadat son of Rafi ; then it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to point out this discrepancy to the `Authorised Officer", so that he could amend the charge-sheet and statement of allegations.
Due to these lapses in the charge-sheet and statement of allegation, I hold that the appellant has been prejudiced in his defence. I have also gone through the enquiry report and the impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer, who, by exercising, his powers as an "Autho--rised Officer" has terminated the appellant from service. According to the impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer, the appellant has been punished on account of the charge of corruption only having been proved against him and there is no mention about other charges as con--tained in the charge-sheet and statement of allegations. As I have already observed that the name of the father of Shahadat was incorrectly mentioned in the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations, so it cannot be presumed that the appellant knew that Shahadat son of Rajada is the person whom the Departmental Authorities in intended to produce as witness against him. This must have put the appellant in an embarassing position when he was confronted with Shahadat son of Rajada instead of Shahadat son of Rafi, the alleged complainant so mentioned in the charge-sheet. Thus, I can safely conclude that the charge-sheet is defective, vague and has caused miscarriage of justice. I may also point out that the Executive Engineer has not taken any, pains to go through the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. If he had perused these, he would not have terminated the service of the appellant, as an "Authorised Officer", within the meaning of Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. The rules clearly lay down that the Authorised Officer" can only impose minor punishments and the -Authority" can impose major penalties. Although in case of the Canal Patwari, the Executive Engineer enjoys duel status 'of an "Authority" and an "Authorised Officer" under the Delegation of Powers Rules, yet be has not acted in both these capacities. Since in this case, he has exercised his powers as an "Authorised Officer" as mentioned in the impugned order and not as an "Authority, so I hold that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and illegal. It has also been observe that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in most careless and slipshod manner. Under the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 the enquiry officer enjoy the powers of a civil Court for the purposes of summoning and recording of evidence. He has recorded the statements of Mohabbat son of Rajada, Shahadat son of Rajada and Noor son of Karmali without administering oath to them. The statement of these witnesses have been recorded in the form of questions and answers while it is to be recorded in a narrative form. I wish that the enquiry officer had conducted the enquiry according to the relevant rules.
6. Keeping the above analysis in view, I set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the competent authority to proceed against the appellant in accordance with the law. The appellant shall be re-instated in service in order to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable the departmental authorities proceed against him. The period from the date of termination of appellant's services to that of re-instatement shall be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay.
There will be no orders as to costs.