' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Manzoor Masud Tamanna has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab, Local Government Department, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order imposing minor penalty on the appellant be declared null and void and appeal be accepted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Chief Officer, Zila Council, Faisalabad during 1980-$1, allegedly awarded contract of Cattle Fairs of Jaranwala and Toba Tek Singh, without proper auction and without observing proper procedure, and thus substantial loss occurred to the Zila Council on account of his above misconduct. A preliminary enquiry was held against the appellant as well as ex-Vice-Chairman Mian Rashid, by the Director-General, Local Government and Rural Development Department. As a result of the said inquiry the appellant was charge-sheeted whereas no action was taken against ex-Vice-Chairman, Zila Council, Faisalabad.
The appellant was charge-sheeted for the purpose of regular inquiry and he replied to the same.
An enquiry was held by Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Yusaf, DSD-IV Enquiries, S. G. A. & I Department, who found that the charge (i) was not proved against the appellant. With regard to Charge No, 2 it was held that the charge stood proved against him and while charges (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) he was of the opinion that they all stood proved against him. However, the Enquiry Officer mentioned some extraneous circumstances in favour of the appellant in the concluding portion of the enquiry. The case was considered by the competent authority, charges (ii), (iii) and (vi) were dropped and remaining charges (iii) and (iv) were taken into account and he was visited with minor penalty of withholding of increments for three years. He filed Review Petition which was considered and rejected vide letter, dated 24th January, 1984. 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 of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that charge No, (3) basically relates to the allegation that offer was accepted without reference to the Finance Committee on his advice that prior approval was not required, it was factually incorrect as the appellant was never confronted with the said note nor the same was produced before this Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant no such note existed. He relied on the documentary evidence which according to him was available on record, as under :-
(a) Appellant's note to the effect that reference to Finance Committee was necessary was on record.
(b) That the Chairman in his statement at the preliminary enquiry stated that he had in fact advised that reference to the Finance Committee was required but he did not refer the case to the Finance Committee.
(c) That in the statement before the Enquiry Officer Mr. Sardar Muhammad Gadhi, the succeeding Chairman, stated that he had shown him the note wherein he had observed that Chairman was not competent to sanction the contract on his own authority and reference to Finance Committee was necessary.
(d) That Rana Anwar P. W. 1 corroborated that the appellant had suggested a reference to the Finance Committee but the Chairman did not consider such reference to be necessary.
' According to the learned counsel for the appellant, all these points were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer while concluding the enquiry proceedings. With regard to the charge that the case was not placed before the House learned counsel for the appellant has made the following points :-
(1) That the case was in fact placed before the meeting held on 15th January, 1981 ; and
(2) That in the circumstances of the case there was no delay.
6.. On the other band learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department-so submitted before this Tribunal in extenso and has submitted that charge No, (3) stood proved on the face of record as the matter was never put up before the Finance Sub-Committee which was competent to accept or reject the offer. It has been further submitted that while putting up a note before the Chairman, Zila Council, Faisalabad, the appellant had clearly stated that the offer could be accepted by the Chairman subject to the approval of the House. It has been further submitted that many meetings of the Zila Council were held but the matter never placed before the house.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and as the matter pertains to the record of this case, we have seen the record and find that the proposal submitted by the appellant to the Chairman, Zila Council were as under :- {{URDU TEXT}} After considering this note of the appellant the Chairman, Zila Council wrote as under :- "Approved subject to the approval of the House. A plain reading of this note clearly indicates that the appellant had informed his Chairman of the existing Rules and Regulations and while suggesting that the bid in question could be accepted, in anticipation of the sanction of the House also proposed that even this suggestion should be placed before the Finance Sub-Committee for recommendation. This is also on record that the Chairman at the relevant time, while appearing in the preliminary enquiry had also conceded that he had seen the note in which the appellant had warned the then Chairman that straightway acceptance of bids was not within his competency according to rules on the subject. This fact was corroborated by Rana Anwar who also appeared at this stage. It is also on record that Chairman was not an illiterate person but was a law graduate, therefore, a person of this qualification was required to make an independent decision when there were suggestions to that effect.
8. In the light of the above position after consulting the record we are of the considered opinion that the appellant had performed his duties and was in no way responsible for the deliberate act of the Chairman who took an independent decision despite a clear wearing in the note that according to the Regulations he could not himself accept the bids in such matters.
9. With regard to the allegation that the case was put up before the house after considerable delay the appellant has satisfied as that in the circumstances at the particular time, it was not possible to do so.
10. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 9th October, 1983. There will be no order as to costs.