' Barkat Ali Randhawa has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order passed by respondent No, 3 vide his order dated 30th September, 1983. He has impleaded the Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur Region at Bahawalpur and the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Rahimyar Khan Circle, Rahimyar Khan (Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Ahmad), as respondents. 1985 BARKAT ALI RANDHAWA V. SECY. TO GOVT. OF PB,, IRRI. AND 803.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was involved in different departmental cases. Out of eight cases four cases have been decided by the competent authority and the remaining four cases are still under investigation. Out of the decided four cases, the appellant was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. Against this decision the appellant exercised his right of appeal to the next higher authority the Chief Engineer Irrigation who rejected the same vide his order dated 22nd May, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's 34 years good service had been thrown out like a ball from the ground by the respondent No, 3 on account of enmity and personal grounds for which he was not competent to do so for the reason that the appellant belonged to Regional cadre and in the instant case the Chief Engineer, respondent No, 2 was the competent authority to award him punishment. It was further argued that the dismissal of the appellant from service, when he had served for 34 years long period with the department, was a harsh punishment. Learned Counsel for the appellant has mostly argued the case making personal enmity of the authority.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant came earlier before this Tribunal in which he claimed that he was promoted and confirmed as Assistant in the cadre of 1955 and he should be considered vis-a-vis the others since that date. The case was thrashed by the Tribunal and ultimately the Tribunal found that that the appellant had no case and produced so many documents, the verosity of which was controversial. Learned District Attorney has stated that in the present case the X E N, Rahimyar Khan proceeded against the appellant. He Was served with a show-cause notice through Registered Post at his Postal addresses but the show-cause notice was received back undelivered with the remarks that the address was incomplete. The show-cause notice was delivered to the appellant on 26th March, 1983 when he attended the Divisional Office, Rahimyar Khan Division. The appellant tendered defence reply to the show-cause notice on 27th March, 1983 denying the charges that he had never erased even a single letter.
According to the learned District Attorney the Authorised Officer then sent the original increment certificates to the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Police, Lahore vide his. No, 1355 dated 23rd February, 1983 and it was found that the appellant had committed act of forgery.
According to the learned District Attorney the appeal was liable for dismissal as all the charges against him stood proved which were of heinous nature.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the detailed order dated 30th September, 1983 of the competent authority in this case. The appellant was given full chance to establish his innocence but his act of forgery stood proved on the result of Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab Police, which has not been refuted. He was found absent from duty on 7th January, 1983 without any lawful authority. The production of bogus medical certificates from the dates 10th January, 1983 to 9th February. 1983 and 10th February, 1983 to 9th March, 1983 has also been established on the basis of documentary evidence. The charges of malice etc. By the appellant against the competent authority are absolutely unwarranted as nothing has been brought on record to prove the same. The wild allegations levelled by the appellant can hardly be taken into consideration as these are devoid of any substance.
8. When the case of the appellant came earlier before this Tribunal it was found that the appellant has relied on the documents which were ultimately found bogus and the case was decided with the observation that this matter be enquired into by the competent authority. I am fully satisfied that the competent authority has arrived at a decision which is based on documentary evidence and appellant has been given sample chance to defend himself. In these circumstances I do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. However, the order of his dismissal cannot be passed with retrospective effect by the competent authority as it is not permissible under the law. In view of this, I hereby direct that the appellant will be considered to have been dismissed from service w. e. f. 30th September, 1983 the date on which the said order was so passed.
9. With this modification the appeal stands dismissed.