ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). - Sheikh Ataul Haq, the ex-Oversear of Punjab Public Health Engineering, Department, has filed this appeal under section 4 of Ahe Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Punjab Province, through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore, The Chief Engineer, Punjab Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore the Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan and the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Bahawalpur as respondents
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that order of his dismissal dated 12-5-1973 passed by respondent No. 3 may be set aside being illegal, ultra vires, and having no legal effect.
Also orders of the recoveries as per details given in his appeal be set aside.
3. Facts of the case are that the appeal was instituted before this Tribunal earlier and the same was disposed of, dated 27-1-1975, with the order that the appellant should first prefer an appeal before the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer informed the appellant on 14-2-1976 that his appeal had been considered and rejected ; but the Tribunal did not agree with the decision. On 9-3-1976 again the Chief Engineer was directed by the Tribunal to issue notice to the appellant who may be pro--vided a chance of personal hearing and thereafter special order should be passed dealing with all contentions which may be raised by the appellant before him. The Chief Engineer heard the appellant on 20-1-1980, vide his letter No. 463/E (4) dated 24-5-1981, be upheld the decision of his predecessor issued earlier vide his predecessor's letter dated 14-2-1976. Sheikh Ataul Haq prior to his dismissal was working as an Oversear in Public Health Engineering Department. While working in Multan and Bahawalpur Divisions respectively, heavy shortages/misappropriations of Government stores as detailed below (as per details given by the Public Health Engineering Department) were also established against him.
The appellant was proceeded against under, West Pakistan Government Service (E & D) Rules, 1960.
As a result thereof he was dismissed from service. Recovery of shortages/misappropriation of Government stores were ordered to be made from the appellant. Hence this appeal.
4. The counsel for the appellant argued that the case of the dismissal of the appellant is illegal and void on the grounds that enquiries were not properly conducted and the appellant was not provided proper opportunities to defend himself. In case of shortage misappropriation/recoveries imposed on the appellant he argued that these have been falsely inflicted on him. In his proof, the appellant and his counsel, produced a stock handing over list by the appellant to Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Overseer wherein details of certain stores were shown in the remarks columns. At the time of handing over the stock to the above Overseer, in the remarks column it has been shown that such and such material is short against Muhammad Nazir Driver, and other short stores were also in the custody of Muhammad Sharif Overseer. They contended, as per details given in the remarks columns, the stores should have been accounted for by the department and not shown as shortages against the appellant. The learned D. A. However, controverted these arguments by saying that the appellant was proceeded against under (E & D) Rules, 1960 ; all the required formali--ties were completed before dismissing him. He was given full opportunities to defend himself. As far as shortages/misappropriation of Government stores and their recoveries are concerned, according to the very charge list, presented in the Court by the appellant and his counsel ; the appellant has acknowledged himself these shortages. The transactions shown in the remarks column cannot be said as valid transaction of stock. Acknowledg--ing all the shortages in the remarks column and charge list, clearly show that these stores were not actually banded over to his successor and were misappropriated. Thus, according to his stock handing over list he is fully responsible for the shortages /misappropriation. The learned District Attorney also produced a copy of judgment and decree dated 9-4-1981 in Civil Suit No. 250, decided by Mr. Muhammad Latif Qureshi, Civil Judge, 1st Class Multan, entitled Muhammad Ata-ul-Haq v. Province of Punjab, etc., wherein the suit for declaration was filed against same issues/orders as prayed by the appellant in his this appeal. These issues were decided against the appellant by the Civil Judge.
5. We have given our anxious thought to all the issues, considering the argument of appellant's counsel, the learned D.A. And have gone carefully through the record. Furthermore we, have the benefit of going through judg--ment and decree by Mr. Muhammad Latif Qureshi, Civil Judge, 1st Class, Multan, mentioned in para. 4 above, wherein the learned Judge has given a detailed judgment going into the detailed history and the facts of the case. This suit was instituted on 6-11- 1972 and decided by the learned Civil Judge on 9-4-1981. It took him considerable time to decide the issues after recording the evidences of both the parties. He has concluded as under :- ---The impugned orders have been assailed on two grounds that the plaintiff was deprived of the constitutional guarantees and he was also condemned unheard. All the documents on file clearly reveal that the plaintiff was given full opportunity to prove himself inno--cent and he actively participated in the enquiries held against him. This Court comes for the rescue for any aggrieved only at that time when his constitutional rights have been trampled. In the present case the plaintiff was never condemned unheard no matter if he himself sometimes withdrew from the enquiry to create defence. The impugned orders are therefore, not illegal and ultra vires. The issue is, therefore, decided against the plaintiff'."
We have also independently studied the whole case and concluded that the appellant was given full opportunities as required under the E & D Rules, to defend himself. The handing over charge report, to Mr. Ghulam Murtaza, which was produced before us also does not go in his favour, because he should have handed over the store/articles to his successor rather than mentioning in the remark columns of this report that item Nos. I and 2 be charged short against Muhammad Niwaz Driver and items Nos. 3, 4 and 8 shown short are in the custody of Mr. Muhammad Sharif Overseer. Item No. 7 is lying at Muzaffargarh. He has himself acknow--ledged these shortages in the charge list and cannot be absolved of these, as the appellant has failed to justify these. He could not justify the other shortages/misappropriations as well, detailed in his appeal.
6. Keeping all the above facts in view we conclude that he has been rightly dismissed from service after observing the required formalities under the (E & D) Rules. 1960.
Shortages/misappropriations/recoveries against him have also been correctly established. There is no force in his appeal which is dismissed without any merits.
There will be no order as to costs to the parties.
1. Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, , Bahawalpur, Office Order No. 3931E, dated 18-11-1968.Rs.
17,301.84
2. Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan, Office Order No. 174/E dated 21-12-1972.7,174.00
3. Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Multan, Office Order No. 175/E. Dated 21-12-1972.4,177.50
4. Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Bahawalpur, Office, Order No. 86/E, dated 19-11-1974.1,14,148,.33 Rs.1,42,801.67