' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Ch. Fatal Karim has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order of compulsory retirement, dated 11th January, , 1981, passed by the Secretary, Agriculture and the order dated 23rd August, 1984, passed on Review Petition. He has impleaded the Secretary Agriculture, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, and Accountant-General, Punjab G.A.D. VIII, Lahore, as the respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, it has been prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits without any break.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant in the year 1976, was working in Bagh-i-Jinnah, Lahore, as Agricultural Officer/Garden Overseer. The appellant alongwith other Overseers were residing in the premises of the Garden. The appellant was transferred to the office of Director- General of Agriculture Extension, Punjab, Lahore, and as such remained in Lahore. Later on, he was promoted as Extra-Assistant Director Agriculture Taunsa, District D. G. Khan. After his transfer to Taunsa the appellant was placed under suspension and was issued a show-cause notice. Qureshi Muhammad Hashim Shah, Director Agriculture was appointed as Authorised Officer. The said Authorised Officer recommended to Government major penalty of dismissal of the appellant.
However, the appellant was compulsorily retired from service vide impugned order, dated 11th January, 1981, passed by the Secretary Agriculture. The appellant filed Review Petition before Respondent, No, 1 which was also rejected vide his order, dated 23rd August, 1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record carefully with their assistance.
5. It has been submitted on his behalf through his learned counsel that all the allegations levelled against the appellant were not proved from the record. It has been further submitted that the charge of fraud was totally baseless and not supported by evidence.
' According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant stayed in the premises after his transfer beyond 30th June, 1979, by getting permission from the competent authority. With regard to the receiving of house rent allowance learned counsel for the appellant submitted that House Rent Allowance was paid to the appellant by the Respondent No, 2 after considering the case thoroughly. It was allowed to him by the Accountant-General Punjab after enquiry. A grievance has been made that the appellant could not be visited with major penalty of compulsory retirement for not vacating the Government accommodation after his transfer on the ground that there was specific procedure provided for ejectment and eviction and proceedings against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, were unjustified. It has been further submitted that the position with regard to drawing house rent allowance of a particular employee was the discretion of the respondent No, 2 which was done on the basis of certain evidence and satisfaction under the rules, and the same was never concealed by the appellant. It was present on the file in the form of a long correspondence and noting. If there was any difference of disbursement or over-payment the same could be realised or deducted and the action of the respondents was not warranted by law.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments filed by the Respondents in extenso and has submitted that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the show-cause notice we issued in the name of the appellant in which following allegations were made :-
(1) That on your transfer from Bagh-i-Jinnah, you relinquished charge of your duties on 31st March, 1979, afternoon.. You were entitled to occupy the Government quarter upto 30th June, 1979 under the rules but you are still residing in the same quarter in spite of repeated notices given to you for vacating the same quarter.
(2) That you were provided Government accommodation from 27th April, 1976 to 30th November, 1979, during your posting in Bagh-i-Jinnah and you were not entitled to draw house rent allowance but you have drawn Rs, 9,399 fraudulently as house rent allowance.
(3) That you failed to pay the monthly rent amounting to Rs, 3,230 from 27th April, 1976 to 30th November, 1979 during your stay in Bagh-i-Jinnah.
' The appellant did not file any reply to the said show-cause notice but adopted evasive methods by first seeking permission to consult the Government record in the office of Superintendent, Government Gardens, Lahore ; and also requested for extension of period in rendering reply. Both the requests were acceded as a special case and he was permitted on 18th October, 1980, and to submit his reply to the said show-cause notice within a further period of 14 days. However, his further request that he might be supplied copies of Policy letters in support of his request made on 30th August, 1980 was not accepted, as it was considered that he was prolonging to evade the reply of the said show-cause notice. He was further informed that in his own interest he should submit reply within the prescribed term failing which ex parte decision would be taken against him.
It seems that the appellant was bent upon prolonging the case on one pretext to the other he failed to submit his comments to the Authorised Officer who was ultimately, constrained to recommend his dismissal from service to the Authority. The Authority Secretary Agriculture Punjab, summoned the appellant before him and apprised him all the charges which were so -levelled against him. He afforded him an opportunity of personal hearing on 3rd January, 1981. The explanation offered by him was not considered tenable as the appellant had not cared to put up defence before the Authorised Officer in reply to the show-cause notice duly given by him.
According to the Secretary Agriculture it tantamounts to admission of his fault. It was held by the Secretary Agriculture that the appellant not only occupied Government accommodation without paying rent but also drew house rent to which he was not entitled. Thus in view of the Secretary Agriculture, he caused loss to Government to the extent of Rs, 12,629. However, keeping in view his Jong service in the Department, instead of dismissing him from service in the Department, the appellate authority ordered his compulsory retirement. It was also ordered that recovery of Government dues to the extent of Rs, 12,629 be effected as arrears of land revenue.
8. In these circumstances the plea of the appellant that he was still in litigation with the Department about occupation of quarter in Bagh-iJinnah will not add anything to his case but on the other hand showed his intention in indulging litigation with the Department. It is proved on record that the appellant was allottee of Quarter in Bagh-i-Jinnah although he claims that these quarters were not Quarters and only cattle sheds just to live in the same without paying any rent. It is also established on the record that he did charge house-rent and received Rs, 12,622 as rent of the said Quarter from Government whereas be was enjoying rent free accommodation. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that actually the accommodation was hardly accommodation worth living of a Government servant but actually was a cattle shed, does not impress us on the ground that the appellant lived in the same for pretty long time and refused to vacate the same even after his transfer from Lahore, and indulged in litigation with the Government. From the above act of the appellant it rebut the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the premises was hardly worth living any human being as these were just a cattle sheds. The appellant himself, despite reasonable opportunity so provided to him by the Authorised Officer refused to associate in the proceedings and did not come forward with any defence before him. This being so the learned Secretary Agriculture was fully justified to presume that appellant had nothing to say in his defence and in fact admitted his own guilt. However, the Secretary Agriculture taking into consideration long service of the appellant did not deprive him of his service benefits ordered his compulsory retirement and sued him from the penalty of dismissal.
9. In view of the above detailed analysis of the case we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order of the Secretary Agriculture which is fully justified, and maintain the same.
Resultantly the appeal " dismissed as being without any merits. There will be no order as t costs.