' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).--Bashir Ahmad, Ex-Supervisor Fisheries, Sohawa, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director of Fisheries, Punjab, Lahore and the Secretary, Wildlife and Fisheries Department as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 24-7-1983 and 15-2-1984 be set aside and he be re-instated in service w,e,f, 21-7-1983 as if the impugned orders were never passed with back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as Supervisor Fisheries, Sohawa, the appellant was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, Lahore vide charge-sheet dated 29-3-1983 alongwith the statement of allegations. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, to the Assistant Director, Fisheries, Jhelum and Enquiry Officer was appointed to probe into the allegations.
4. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the Authorised Officer who submitted his recommendations to the Authority i,e, , Director Fisheries, Punjab, Lahore who issued a notice for personal hearing under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servant (E & D) Rules, 1975 vide order, dated 11-7- 1983. The appellant was personally heard in person on 19-7-1983. The Authority after consideration of the case of the appellant imposed the penalty of removal from service w,e,f, 21-7-1983 vide order dated 24-7-1983. The appellant made an appeal to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Lahore which was rejected vide his order dated 15-2- 1984. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the parties i,e,, Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished without fully probing the charge against him. He has submitted that the enquiry proceedings against the appellant has not been conducted according to the rules and principles of natural justice because the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the crucial prosecution witness especially Muhammad Sharif, Senior Clerk who produced the necessary record against the appellant. Moreover, he was also not allowed to produce the material defence witnesses in his favour. The appellant's counsel has also expressed his grievances that most of the charges in his case were common with the case of Muhammad Ayyaz Khan, Ex-Assistant Warden Fisheries and in that case also some prosecution witnesses made statements before the Enquiry Officer which supported the appellant's case but the Enquiry Officer did not give any weight to such statements in his enquiry report. He has drawn our attention to the statement of Abdul Karim, Junior Clerk, who was the complainant in this case. He clearly stated that he had moved the complaint due to some personal annoyance and he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the bills in question. Similarly he had stated in answer to a question that when he was holding the charge of senior clerk, he prepared the bills in question but he did not doubt genuineness or otherwise of the bills. Similarly Qamar-uz-Zaman, Tubewell Mechanic, also verified the entry in the log book with regard to the operation of the Peter Engine. It was also verified by Abdul Rehman, Fisheries Watcher that the payments had been made to the Labourers in the presence of Fazal Hussain Qureshi the Local Councilor and necessary certificates were recorded by the A.D.F. Concerned. It appears from the proceedings that the statements of the main prosecution witness Muhammad Sharif, Senior Clerk were recorded at two stages. In the first stage he did not produce the record and asked for time for the same. At subsequent stage when he produced the record and gave detailed statement supporting the allegations. At that time the appellant was not associated and he was not allowed to cross-examine the said witness. Moreover Abdul Shakoor son of Abdul Sattar, Labourer and Muhammad Farooq son of Nisar Ahmad, Labourer appeared before the Enquiry Officer and confirmed that they had worked and received the payments.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that all these irregularities vitiated the proceedings as well as the impugned orders as the appellant was not given fair opportunity to offer his defence and to rebut the evidence produced by the other party. Thus, the appellant has been punished arbitrarily on the charges which were not proved against the appellant.
8. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and also has relied on the Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer. He has submitted that the Enquiry Officer has proved the charges against the appellant, he has been found guilty of misconduct and the impugned orders are correct and lawful and no exception can be taken against the same.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case produced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the enquiry report and the enquiry proceedings. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the enquiry has not been held properly as the appellant was not associated with the enquiry throughout which is contrary to the law and rules. The appellant has not been afforded opportunities by the Enquiry Officer to defend himself by cross-examining the Senior Clerk Muhammad Shard of the Department who produced the record and acted as departmental representative before the Enquiry Officer. The record also shows that the appellant was not given the opportunities to produce the defence witnesses in his favour which were duly named by him as Labourers, Bostan, Sattar, Khurshid, Rashid and Latif which has caused material prejudice to the appellant's case. Moreover, certain witnesses were produced namely Abdul Shakoor, Muhammad Farooq and Subah Sadiq who gave statements which supported the appellant's case but no notice has been taken by the Enquiry Officer of the same while giving his findings. We have also noticed that the Enquiry Officer has not allowed the witnesses to give their statements freely and of their own accord but he adopted the procedure of putting questions of his own choice and then recorded their answers to such selected questions. This procedure is quite abnormal, unusual and is not fair. Keeping in view the principle of natural justice. Keeping the above analysis of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is defective and has not been conducted strictly under the law and rules.
10. The result is that the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Authority, Director of Fisheries, Punjab, Lahore to proceed afresh by appointing another Enquiry Officer who be directed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with rules. The appellant is directed to be re- instated in service to clothe him with the status of a civil servant so that the Authority can proceed against him. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service will be decided by the 'Authority' after conducting the proceedings afresh as mentioned above.