Wahid Bukhsh, ex-Peon, Pharmacology 'Department, Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. 1974 wherein he has impleaded Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Professor of Pathology Department, the Principal, Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur and the Province of Punjab as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 31-1- 1982 wherein his services were terminated be set aside and the appellant be restored the post of peon.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as peon in Pharmacology Department, Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur. The appellant was charge-sheeted/show-cause notice served on 19-12-1981 with the allegation that the appellant mishandled the University Answer Books of Muhammad Mumtaz Khan and Miss Shamim Qureshi Roil Nos. 196 and 290 of 3rd year M.
B., B.S. Students respectively from the Almirah of the office room of the Professor of Pharmacology and increased the failure numbers to that of pass marks, kept the master key of locks for ulterior motives and also performed office duty carelessly by disclosing official secrets to unauthorised persons. The reply to the charge-sheet show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant on 26- 12-1981. This reply was considered and also the appellant was heard in person on 16-1-1982. As the appellant was found guilty of misconduct, corruption and in-efficiency, his services were terminated from 31-1-1982. The appellant preferred an appeal on 4-2-1982 to respondent No. 2 which was rejected on 27-2-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the enquiry conducted cannot be regarded as an enquiry as envisaged in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The appellant was not given an opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry report shows that the statement of the student Miss Shamim Qureshi is against Din Muhammad and not the appellant, thus the charges against the appellant have not been proved. The appellate authority, while rejecting the appeal has not passed the detailed speaking order. The appellant had 8 years service and while imposing the penalty his previous service record has not been kept in view. Controver--ting these arguments the learned District Attorney argued that although the show-cause notice has been styled as a charge-sheet yet it is in fact a show-cause notice mentioning all the details of allegations and the penalties to be imposed, as required under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975.
Fact finding preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which the appellant duly participated and was given opportunities to defend himself. Moreover the master key was recovered from him, which was a clear cut proof that he was deeply involved in whole of this affair and allegations stood proved against him.
5. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have also consulted the record. The contention of the learned counsel of the appellant that the preliminary enquiry conducted against the appellant cannot be equated with a regular enquiry as provided in rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D)
Rules, 1975 and it cannot be used against him, is without any force. I am conscious of the fact that a regular enquiry cannot be equated with a facts finding enquiry but when an accused is associated in the preliminary enquiry and is allowed to defend himself then the said enquiry can be used for the purpose o issuing a show-cause notice under the rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D)
Rules, 1975. In the instant case, the appellant was associated in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and was allowed to defend himself. Thus no prejudice or any miscarriage of justice was caused to the appellant. I have minutely gone through the charge-sheet and have noticed that it corresponds with the show-cause as per provisions contained in rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 although it is styled as a charge-sheet. Thus no illegality has been committed. Se far as the allegations are concerned, it is in evidence that he had a master key and it was recovered at his instance from an almirah in his charge. This recovery of the master key which was within the exclusive possession of the appellant cannot be easily ignored and is to be relied upon for bringing home the charges to the appellant. Posses--sion of this key is an ample proof that he used this key for opening the lock of the almirah to fulfil his design for changing the marks of the answer books. I have examined the statement of the students and other persons recorded by the enquiry officer. The perusal of these statements shows .Hat the marks in the answer books were changed with the active connivance of the appellant. Thus, I hold that the allegation as contained in the show-cause notice although styled as charge-sheet stood proved against the appellant which could not be rebutted by the appellant in his defence.
6. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.