MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER). -Shamshad Ahmad, Ex-Assistant, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue and Full Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 30-4-1977 and 5-3-1978 passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively be set aside and the appellant be re-instated with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a charge-sheet dated 3-1-1975 alongwith the statement of allegations was served upon the appellant whereby he was called upon to submit his written defence within 14 days of the service thereof and to show-cause as to why one or more of the major penalties prescribed under rule 4 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 be not imposed upon him, on the allegations of misconduct within the meaning, rule 3 (b) of West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. The appel--lant failed to submit his reply with regard to the charges levelled against him within the stipulated period. The competent authority after examining the case decided that there were good grounds for holding a Departmental Enquiry into the allegations of misconduct attributed to the appellant, as such Deputy Secretary (Settlement) Board of Revenue, Lahore was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. At that stage the appellant submitted reply to the charge-sheet to the Enquiry Officer directly. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of a number of prosecution witnesses and the witnesses on behalf of the appellant in his defence. After concluding the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18-11-1975 to the competent authority. After examining the case the competent authority served a notice as envisaged under rule (i) of the West Pakistan Govern--ment Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 to show-cause in writing as to why the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. Alongwith the notice, the competent authority also sent a copy of the Enquiry Report. The appellant submitted a detailed reply to respondent No. 1, who after hearing him in person on 24-4-1976 held him guilty of all the charges and imposed the penalty of removal from service vide his order -dated 26-4-1976. Being aggrieved of this order, the appellant filed an appeal to the Full Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide order dated 5- 2-1978. Hence the present appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. M. A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated him from charge No. 2 and the Enquiry report was also accepted by the respondent No. 1, because in the show-cause notice served by him, he did not call upon the appellant to explain his position with regard to that charge, and the show-cause notice was only with regard to the charge No. 1. It has also been argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is descrepant and untrustworthy. It has also been argued that even Raja Zaffar Ali Khan P.W. 1, who was working as Deputy Secretary (Settlement) during those days, was not sure about the culpability of the appellant. It has also been submitted that there is no positive evidence on the record to prove that the alleged forgery was committed by the appellant. On the other band the learned District Attorney had controverted the arguments of the appellant and has submitted that the competent authority is fully justified to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, for the reasons to be recorded by him. Since the com--petent authority has given very plausible reasons for bringing home the charge No. (ii) to the appellant, so the order in this behalf is not assailable, On merits the learned District Attorney has submitted that the evidence against the appellant consists not only of oral evidence but, it is also corroborated by documentary evidence which is comprised f the office noting on the files written by the appellant and the memorandum in dispute duly initialled by the appellant. He has concluded that both the charges have teen proved against the appellant without any shadow of doubt.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of the case very carefully with their assistance. Since the charge-sheet is on two counts so we have proposed to deal with the same separately. The charges attributed to the appellant are reproduced as under for sake of ready reference :- "(i) that you while working in the Colony (Lease) Branch as Assistant dealt with the application of one Mr. Ashiq Hussain son of Qadir Bakhsh, resident of Chak No. 93/P., Tehsil and District Rahimyar Khan bearing Colony Branch Diary No. 5838, dated 28-11-1973 and in para. 4 of your note dated 29- 11-1973, stated as under :- "According to existing policy, the applicant can be allowed to retain the land for a period of one year being a sitting lessee. May forward his application to the Deputy Commissioner for necessary action in the light of instructions dated 14-5-1973."
However, later on you changed words `one year' into five years' with ulterior motive ;
(ii) that you tampered with Memorandum No 5855-74(2925-CII, dated 30-11-1973, and placed on the file a forged copy thereof, as office copy, which duly bears your initials dated 29-11-1973, but does not bear the initials of the Deputy Secretary (Colonies). The "7"' original office copy which bears the initials of the Deputy Secretary (Colonies) was also tampered with and was made available to the party concerned as would appear from the photostat copy received from Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan, with his D. C. Letter No. CB-241, dated 5-10-1974, presented to him by Mr. Ashiq Hussain, with his application dated 11-7-1974."
After reproducing the charges, now we proceed to analyse the evidence in seriatum to come to a positive conclusion whether these have been proved against the appellant or not.
Charge No. (i): This charge pertains to changing the word one year into five years in the office note of the appellant dated 29-11-1973 which pertains to an application of Ashiq Hussain son of Qadir Bakhsh of District Rahimyar Khan for the lease of State land which was made to the Deputy Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue to grant him lease of State land for five years. The appellant through his noting recorded that according to existing policy the appellant could be allowed to retain land for a period of one year, being a sitting lessee and his application be sent to the Deputy Commissioner for disposal in the light of the instructions of Board of Revenue dated 14-5-1973 (the letter five has been written in ink and before the typed word years). Accordingly, the draft submitted by the appellant was signed by the authority and sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim--yar Khan. The office copy of the memorandum dated 30-5-1973 is available on record.
Duly initialled by the appellant, which shows that the applicant could retain the land for five years.
There is oral evidence of Mr. Raja Zaffar Ali Khan P W. Who has stated that the note in dispute was written by the appellant and the office copy of memo. Dated 30-11-1973 although bears the initials of the appellant yet it did not bear his signatures. The said witness has also stated that a photo copy of memorandum of the same number and date was also presented by Ashiq Hussain which also bears the initial of the appellant. Similary both these copies vary from each. He has also stated that according to his memory the lease given to Ashiq Hussain was only for one year. However, he has given a concession to the appellant to the effect that he can only guess that it was the appel-- lant who could have interpolated with the office noting but this concession is not of any avail to the appellant in the presence of the office noting of the appellant dated 18-5-1974, written by him after the memorandum dated 30-11-1963 was cancelled by the Member, Board of Revenue. Similarly P.
W. Mohammad Akbar, Audit Officer has also supported the case of the prosecution. This witness had conducted an enquiry into this affair and has stated that the office noting has been interpolated by the appellant. He has justified his opinion by the reasons given in his statement which are not only reasonable but also inspire confidence. P. W. Has also admitted in the cross- examination that he did not recognise the handwriting of the appellant and as such he could not say if the substituted words were in the hand writing of appellant or not. This is the only concession given to the appellant, which is not so material for the purpose of this appeal because the matter would become crystal clear when the other substantial evidence given by P. W. 3 are taken into consideration and are read with the office noting of the appellant dated 18-5-1974 referred to above which we proceed to discuss now. Ashiq Hussain again submitted an application to the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore on 21-2-1974 stating therein that he was granted lease for five years by the order of the Deputy Secretary (Colonies) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, R. Y. Khan and requested that the necessary orders for further extension of lease for five years be passed in his favour. On this application the Member, Board of Revenue passed an order whereby cancelling the Memorandum dated 30-11-1973, a copy whereof was appended by Ashiq Hussain with his application. This office copy although bears the initial of the appellant but it does not bear either his signature or the initial of Raja Zafar Ali Khan, Deputy Secretary. Although the Member, Board of Revenue had cancelled the Memorandum dated 30-11- 1973 yet he also called for a report on facts from the Deputy Commissioner, R. Y. Khan which was called for vide Memo. Dated 21-1-1974 with a copy endorsed to the appellant. In reply to this Memorandum the Deputy Commissioner, R. Y. Khan vide his memo. No. CB/116, dated 17-4-1974 informed the Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue about the factual position of the case and also informed him that the case of Ashiq Hussain for the grant of extension of lease for a further period of five years was not covered by any instructions on the subject. This application was dealt with by the appellant in his note dated 18-5-1974. By this time, although the matter had become crystal clear and there was positive evidence on the record that the office noting and the resultant Memorandum had been tampered with, yet the appellant did not mention in his noting dated 18- 5-1974 about any such eventuality Had the conscience of the appellant been clear, he would definitely have pointed out that the office copy of the said Memorandum available on the file do not exactly correspond to the office copy supplied by the appellant and that he had never recommended the lease for five years. In view of this delebrate omission on the part of the appellant, other substantial evidence and the statements of witnesses recorded during the enquiry, was have arrived at a positive conclusion that the charge No.1 has been proved against the appellant.
Charge No. (ii): This charge relates to the tampering of memo. Dated 30-11-1973 and placing on the file a forged copy thereof as an office copy bearing the initials dated 29-11-1973 of the appellant. Although, enquiry officer after re--cording the statement of Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Khan Lodhi, the then Secretary Ch. Riaz Ahmad, the then Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore has concluded that this charge has not been proved against the appellant but since the competent authority has held the appellant guilty of this charge as well so we would also analyse the evidence on this charge. It will not be out of place to mention here that this Tribunal is a Court of law and facts as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Yamin Qureshi and has all the powers to oar or modify the orders of the Departmental authorittes and we are fully competent to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The charge: Nos. (i) and (ii) are inter-related with each other, in that while charge No. (i) relates to the office noting made by the appellant, the charge No. (i.e) pertains to implementation of the results of the said noting and issuance of Memorandum dated 30-11-1974. There is sufficient documentary and oral evidence to prove this charge against the appellant. The office copy of the said memorandum is available on the record through which copy of the application dated 1-11-1973 of Ashiq Hussain was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, R. Y. Khan for necessary action in the light of the instructions contained in the Circular Memo. No. 2303-73/1720-CL-I, dated 14-5-1973 read with memo. No. 13328-72/2103--CL-I, dated 12-6-1972, under which the said Ashiq Hussain could retain land for five years. This office copy bears the initials of the appellant dated 29-11-1973 but does not bear either the initials or the signature of Mr., Zafar Ali Khan, the then Deputy Secretary (Colonies) P W.
1. The office noting dated 24-11-1973 of the appellant shows that he had suggested to forward the application of Ashiq Hussain to the Deputy Commissioner Rahimyar Khan for necessary action in the light of the instructions dated 14-5-1973. In the said note the appellant did not point out about any instructions dated 12-6-1972 so mentioned in the office copy of the memo. Under discussion.
Similarly when the photo copy of another office copy of the same Memorandum was produced, it came to notice that it was issued under the same No. And date. The examination of the said document shows that it also bears the appellant's initial dated 28-11-1973. When we have compared these office copies, we have found that both of them did not exactly tally with each other and the photo copy is not that of the office copy placed by the appellant on record. As we have already discussed under Charge No. (i) that the appellant failed to point out these things in his note dated 18-5-1974 which goes a long way against the appellant. This documentary evidence is fully corroborated by the state--ments of witnesses and we are satisfied that this charge is also proved against the appellant. We do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel that after the file had been consigned to record it must have been tampered with by the record keeper. The reason for the conclusion is that there is no material on the record to show that the file was entrusted to some other person and it never remained in the charge of the appellant and secondly because the appellant was found at Rahimyar Khan by P. W..5 Mr. Ahaldullah who had seen him sitting by the side of Ch. Nazir Ahmad, charge of the Colony Branch and on the request of the appellant, he had given him the No. Of the memorandum. Had the appel--lant been not interested there was no occasion for him to be present at Rahimyar Khan. The defence evidence is not trustworthy and does not ring truth.
5. In view of the above discussion we hold that both the charges have fully been proved against the appellant and we have not found any flaw or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent Result is that we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits, with no order as to costs.