' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought against the order, dated 29-11-1981 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Case No, 772/1050 of 1980.
2. The petitioner while serving in the Lahore Municipal Corporation (Engineering Department) as Sub-Engineer was served with a charge-sheet on 6-3-1974 by respondent No, 2 Commissioner, Lahore Division on allegation of misconduct and corruption within the meaning of West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. The gravamen of the charge was that the petitioner had recorded excessive and fictitious measurement for the metalling and sealing of Lakho Dher Road near Daroghawala, Lahore, with a view to cause financial loss to the Lahore Municipal Corporation for personal gain and to favour the Contractor. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 19-3-1974. Mr. Hameed Elahi was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the Lahore Municipal Corporation to conduct the departmental inquiry against the petitioner, who examined witnesses in support of the charges, petitioner was allowed to produce defence and documentary evidence. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges and further observed that the A. M. E. Was also equally responsible for these charges and that the M. E's conduct in agreeing with and endorsing the bills prepared by the petitioner and later on differing with the same, also merits probe. On the basis of the said inquiry report a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him as to why penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. After receipt of petitioner's reply to the show cause denying the correctness of allegations, order of removal from service dated 7-6-1980 holding petitioner guilty of the charges, was passed by respondent No, 2 under the aforesaid Rules. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No, 1 which resulted in order dated 27-11-1980 which was communicated to him on 1-12-1980. This order of removal from service was challenged before the learned Service Tribunal but it resulted in the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner had applied for copies of certain documents on the basis of which allegations were leveled against him but the copies were not supplied to him nor was he afforded an opportunity to go through the record before replying to the allegations levelled against him, and, therefore, the impugned order of removal from service was vitiated for the reasons of non-compliance of the principle of natural justice, and was also in violation of rule 6
(A) of West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. It was further contended that the petitioner was not direct Incharge of the Project and was lowest on the rung.
The measurement conducted by the petitioner had to be checked by the A. M. E. And the M. E. Of the Corporation. The bill for payment to the contractor had to be verified by the petitioner, A. M. E., as well as the Administrator of Lahore Municial Corporation. The bills are pre-audited and then only payment is made to the Contractor. Lastly, it was contended that the measurements conducted were for the purposes of payment of running bills legally paid in advance to the contractor to be adjusted at the time of final payment towards the contract as is clear in para. 7 of the Contract Agreement.
4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that all the formalities in the holding of departmental inquiry were fulfilled by the respondents.
Witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner and he was allowed full opportunity to defend himself. The measurement recorded by him was in excess of the actual work carried out on the site. This fact has not been seriously controverted by the petitioner and his argument that the final bill would take into consideration any over-payment is not plausible as in any case the Contractor could claim payment for the total work recorded in the Measurement Book maintained by the petitioner. As regards the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1960 we do not consider that the provisions of these Rules have been violated. We find the petition to be without merit and the same is consequently dismissed.