' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Inayat Hussain Bajwa, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the orders, dated 4th June, 1981 passed by respondent No, 1 and order, dated 31st October, 1981 passed by respondent No,
2. The appellant has impleaded Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot as well as the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he may be re- instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while serving at Sialkot against the post of Junior Clerk was served with a show-cause notice, dated 31st March, 1981 by respondent No, 1 as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him under rule 3 (a) (b) of Punjab Civil Servants (E & D)
Rules, 1975. The appellant filed explanation to the said notice. The competent authority dispensing with the proceedings of regular enquiry, heard him in person and passed a detailed order, dated 4th June, 1981 removing him from service with immediate effect. He filed appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division who after hearing the parties and perusal of the record, upheld the order of the competent authority and dismissed his appeal. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the proceedings were held by the respondent No, 1 in total violation of the provisions contained in the E & D Rules, 1975, particularly rules 6 and 7 were not complied with. He has laid lot of emphasis on the grievance that he was not given a chance to defend himself, therefore, his case is hit by the golden principle of justice i,e,, audi alteram paltrem. He also submitted that the consigning of file to the Record Room was not the work of the appellant, but in fact this has been done by somebody else, therefore, the punishment so awarded to him, would not be in consonance with the charge so levelled against him.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that although the appellant was found to have consigned judicial files numbering 59 on 4th December, 1980 and 19 files of Revenue on 25th February, 1981 yet he had not consigned 176 judicial files in the General Record Room, well before the date of inspection of Hon'ble Judge of the Lahore High Court. It has been submitted that appellant had only 4 years of service and during this short period his two annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect and there were a number of complaints against his work from time to time. In this manner it was argued that the appellant did not improve his conduct and punishment so awarded to him was perfectly justified. With regard to the objection that the appellant was not given any regular hearing, the same was repelled on the ground that the competent authority took pains to look into his defence and the appellant was heard in person by the Deputy Commissioner before passing the impugned order. According to the learned District Attorney his case was further scrutinized by the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who positively held that the appellant had no grouse of being heard in person and the said Commissioner also gave hearing to the parties and maintained the order of the D. C. Fully considering all the pros and cons of the case.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have carefully gone through the detailed judgment of the Deputy Commissioner as well as of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, to find out whether the appellant's case was rushed through or it was fully considered by the said two authorities.
8. The fact of the matter is that the appellant failed to consign 176 judicial files in General Record Room although he had been many a times, warned and directed that the Hon'ble Judge of the Lahore High Court, was going to make an inspection of the work and the same should be completed before his arrival. We have also taken note of the fact that after due verification and getting reports from the office of Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot, the correct tenure of the appellant was fixed from 6th January, 1980 to 20th February, 1981 and the same was duly considered, while proceeding with departmental enquiries as well as departmental one when the impugned order was passed.
9. With regard to the grievance that no regular enquiry was held in his case, it would be sufficient to say that there was hardly any necessity to do so, when the evidence was only of documentary nature and nothing A more was required to prove his guilt or innocence of the charges so levelled against him. Moreover, the rules authorise the competent authority to dispense with the proceedings if so considered proper, and the mention of the same is found in the impugned order, dated 4th June, 1981, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot.
10. We have also taken into consideration the quantum of punishment so awarded to him and might have taken a different view, if we B would have found that the appellant had unblemished record of service and it was his first lapse in his short career. Conversely we find that within a short period of 4 years, there were a number of complaints against him, which were entertained from time to time by his superiors and at one time he was punished with stoppage of two increments and his appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.
11. In view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the two well-considered judgments of the learned Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who found that the appellant has failed to improve in his work and was thus incorrigible.
12. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. However, parties will bear their own costs.