' Abdul Hamid ex-Waterman, Government Degree College, Toba Tek Singh, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Principal, Government Degree College, Toba Tek Singh, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that his retirement order be declared as illegal and the appellant be re-instated in the service in the interest of justice.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Waterman in the Government Degree College, Toba Tek Singh. The appellant's work was not satisfactory. Hence, he was charge- sheeted by the respondent on 31-3-1981 and Inquiry Committee, consisting of Prof. Beg Khan Shad and Prof. Fateh Ullah Shah was constituted to enquire into the matter. The appellant was given opportunities to defend himself but he knowingly avoided the same. Though he was also persuaded by the Inquiry Committee to put up his defence, but he failed to do so. Under the circumstances the appellant was proceeded ex parte. He was found guilty of misconduct by the Inquiry Committee and his services were terminated by the respondent vide his Order No,690-91/E, dated 20-10-1981. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had long service of 18/19 years, even then his service has been terminated without any charge-sheet and without providing opportunities to defend himself. The appellant was a Class IV Government Servant and did not come under the purview of Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the proceedings conducted against the appellant under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules by the respondent are not in order. These be treated nullity in the eyes of law and the order of termination of the service of the appellant be declared as void ab initio.
5. Controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that as per Delegation of Power Rules, 1962 of the Education Department, the Principal is a competent authority for dealing with the disciplinary cases against the appellant. Thus, the respondent was competent to proceed against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules in vogue and the proceedings conducted by him are in order. Furthermore, the impugned order is also a valid and lawful order.
6. It was also pointed by the learned District Attorney that a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant but he intentionally avoided to receive the same, though all efforts were made to deliver this to him. Similarly he knowingly avoided to appear before the Inquiry Committee. The opportunities were provided to the appellant to defend himself but he intentionally did not avail these. Under the circumstances, there was no alternative but to proceed against the appellant ex parte, as per rules and he has not been prejudiced in the matter. It has been further submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal of the appellant is not maintainable as he has not exhausted the departmental remedy by filing an appeal to the appellate authority. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
6. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the service record of the appellant very carefully. The service record of the appellant shows that he is not a willing worker and is a malingerer. Following few facts elucidate this matter:-
(i) The appellant apologised for his absence from duty on 31-8-1978 and 15-4-1980.
(ii) On 18-9-1980, the staff of Principal's Office apologised on appellant's behalf, took responsibility for bringing improvement in his attendance and behaviour. Principal agreed with a warning, dated 2-10-1980, to the appellant.
(iii) The appellant was kept under observation, vide order, dated 8-10-1980 of the Principal.
(iv) The appellant did not improve his work and conduct, he was finally charge-sheeted on 31-3- 1981.
7. The record shows that the appellant evaded to receive the charge-sheet. Though the efforts were made to deliver him the same. He, intentionally, did not appear before the Inquiry Committee.
He refused to receive the notice. The Inquiry Committee persuaded him to put up his defence, but he did not do so. On perusal of the record of this case, I am satisfied that the appellant was properly charge-sheeted, an Inquiry Committee was appointed to look into the charge, but the appellant intentionally did not participate in the proceedings. He was afforded opportunities to defend himself, which he knowingly did not avail. Thus, he has not been prejudiced in the matter.
The appellant has also been validly and lawfully proceeded by the competent authority under the Rules.
8. As mentioned above, the appellant has a chequered service record and is a malingerer. It is also clear from the inquiry report, dated 7-9-1981 of the Inquiry Committee that the appellant had installed a private Saw Machine. He was attending his private work and was no more interested in the official work.
9. Keeping in view the above analysis of the case, I hold that there is no force in this appeal, but in view of the long service of the appellant of 18/19 years, I vary the punishment of the appellant to "Compulsory Retirement" instead of "termination of services". The impugned order is modified to this extent only.
' There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.