' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Islam, ex-Headmaster, Government High School Langer Sarai. District Muzaffargarh, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 1st February, 1981, by which the appellant was compulsorily retired from service as Headmaster. The appellant has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he be re- instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while employed as Headmaster, Government High School Chak No, 477/EB, Tehsil and District Vehari, was charge-sheeted on various charges. A regular enquiry was conducted into the charges by Mian Muhammad Rafi, 0. S. D. I of the Anti- Corruption Cell, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The result of his enquiry was forwarded to the Chairman, Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Cell, S & G A I Department, Government of the Punjab.
The appellant was issued a show-cause notice by Mr. Safdar Hussain Kazmi, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department : to submit his reply and was directed that if he wanted to be heard in person, he would be at liberty to appear before the competent authority. The competent authority vide Notification, dated 1st February, 1981 did not find the explanation of the appellant satisfactory and the Governor of the Punjab, was pleased to retire him compulsorily from service under the provision of rule 4 (b) (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975, with immediate effect. This notification was issued in the name of the Governor by Mr. Safdar Hussain Kazmi, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore. The appellant has submitted a review petition to Government but as no reply was received in this behalf, he filed this appeal after awaiting for 90 days of the said Review Petition. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the charge-sheet issued against the appellant was illegal without jurisdiction and void. According to the learned counsel the said charge-sheet was issued by the Director, Public Instruction, Lahore, as Authorised Officer under the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, whereas the appellant was governed by the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, therefore, the said charge-sheet was misconceived. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the evidence on the record did not prove any charge against the appellant as the said evidence was contrary, discrepant and unbelievable. Learned counsel also took exception to the conduct of the officer by summoning a number of C. Ws. As according to the learned counsel this was an attempt on the part of the Enquiry Officer to bring evidence on the record at his own choice. He has also taken exception to the effect that the show- cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, whereas the punishment of compulsory retirement has been awarded by the Governor of the Punjab. According to the learned counsel show-cause notice should have been issued by the Governor of the Punjab and not by the Secretary, Education Department. Ultimately, it has been argued that findings against the appellant 'are based on misreading of evidence and also omitting important piece of evidence in his favour.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has argued that the Director, Public Instructions. In the capacity of Authorised Officer, appointed Mian Muhammad Rafi, 0. S. D. I, S&GAD for holding inquiry under the E & D Rules which was a regular inquiry and not a preliminary one, therefore, no exception can be taken to the same. It was further submitted that every action taken in the name of the Governor of Punjab, by the Secretary of the Department : would always be with the approval of the Governor, therefore, this objection was absolutely unfounded. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the Enquiry Officer made an elaborate and detailed inquiry into the charges so levelled against the appellant and after recording evidence of a large number of witnesses on behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the defence, came to a positive conclusion that except the charge with regard to his misbehaviour with the parents of the student, and all other charges stood completely proved.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and would reproduce the charges so levelled against the appellant for ready reference.
(1) That he removed two trees, one Sheesham and one Sars from the School compound of Government High School 477/EB, Vehari and took some parts weighing 120 maunds to his residence at Multan through a Tractor-Trolly.
(2) That he terminated the service of 4 Class IV employees without observing proper procedure and codal formalities and filled up vacancies drew their full months salaries irrespective of the fact that ban was imposed on fresh recruitments and payment for 11 and 18 days was made to the appointees, and as such he committed misappropriation of Government money and disobeyed the Government orders/instructions.
(3) That he collected unauthorised funds from the students.
(4) That he committed some irregularities in incurring expenditure out of school funds. He has drawn T. A./D. A. For 28 days on Government rates out of school funds without obtaining prior permission or getting the bill passed from the competent authority.
(5) That his attitude and behaviour towards his subordinates is rude and objectionable. The Enquiry Officer in this case examined Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema, P. W. 1, Muhammad Azam, P. W. 2, Muhammad Sharif, P. W. 3, Ghulam Sarwar Peon P. W. 4, Syed Ziaur Rehman. P. W. 5, Muhammad Tufail, P. W. 6, Muhammad Shafi, P. W. 7, Muhammad Irshad Ahmad P. W.
8. Haji Muhammad Akhtar Amir, P. W. 9, Malik Qadir Bakhsh Kharik, P. W. 10, on behalf of the prosecution whereas he examined Fazal Muhammad Cheema, D W. 1, Ata Ullah, D. W. 2, Muhammad Yaqub, D. W. 3, Yahannah Masih D. W. 4 Preetam Masih, D. W. 4(1), Muhammad Ramzan. D. W. 5, and Abdus Shakoor, P. W.
6. In addition to these evidences he recorded the statement of Muhammad Iqbal Azad, Iqbal Hussain, C. W. 2, Fayyazul Hassan, C. W. 3, Yuhannah Masih C. W. 4 Rana Rahmat Ali, C. W.
5. And Mumtaz Hussain, C. W. 6 and in the end recorded the statement of the appellant in detail.
8. We have carefully examined the appellant's evidence placed on the record and did not find any misreading of the evidence in this case by the Enquiry Officer. Although we find some minor discrepancies has the and thither in the evidence of P. Ws. And C. Ws. And we ignore the same as it is some time human to forget specific time and specific dates with the lapse of time. All the witnesses have fully affirmed that the appellant did remove some trees from school's compound and did take the wood of the said trees through a Tractor-Trolly at Multan where he resided. The witnesses were also unanimous on this point that the appellant terminated the services of four class IV employees, without observing proper procedure and codal formalities and filled the vacancies, drew their salaries irrespective of the ban which was imposed on fresh recruitment. It is also fully established on the record that the appellant did collect funds from the students in an unauthorised manner which were not refunded and were misused. Further, the evidence is also very clear on the point duly admitted by the appellant himself that he charged his T. A./ D. A. To various school funds which were not meant for the purpose. As already mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment the charge regarding his attitude towards his subordinates was not substantiated.
9. It will be an important to point out at this stage that the appellant during the course of the said inquiry tried to produce one Yuhanna Masih P. W. Through Preetam Masih and thus tried to produce a fake person instead of a real one. The Enquiry Officer has brought on the record the statement of Yuhanna Masih as well as Preetam Masih to expose the ugly attempt made by the appellant which was criminal in nature and a case was registered against him by the Enquiry Officer on this score also with the relevant police station. The very attempt of this nature would show that the appellant wanted to produce evidence in support of his fake claim that he had purchased the wood from Yuhanna Masih a Firewood Dealer and actually not secured the same by falling the trees situated in the school compound. Preetam Masih C. W. Clearly stated that he was persuaded to commit this crime on the promise that he would be employed by the appellant in school service.
10. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the charges so levelled against the appellant stood fully proved and the enquiry so conducted against him was independent in nature, giving him full opportunity to defend himself.
11. The result is we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order of his removal from service and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. There will be no order as to costs. To be communicated to the parties.