' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Superintending Engineer, 3rd Provincial Buildings Circle, Lahore, and Executive Engineer, 5th Provincial Buildings Division, McLeod Road, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 27-11-1982 of the Executive 5th Provincial Buildings Division, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted while working as SDO 'K' Sub- Division on 15-3-1982. The details of charge-sheet/statement of allegation are at Annexure 'A'. The appellant submitted the reply to the same on 28-3-1982. On consideration of the same and report of Enquiry Officer, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice by respondent No,3 in September 1982. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 18-10-1982.
However, the appellant was found guilty of misconduct and a penalty of stoppage of increment without future effect for one year was imposed by respondent No,3 vide his order dated 27-11-1982.
The appellant made an appeal to respondent No,2 on 5-12-1982, which is still pending. As the period of 90 days has elapsed, hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not responsible for the loss of the measurement book. The report lodged to the S.H.O.
Old Anarkali by the S.D.O. Clearly shows that the Sub-Divisional Clerk reported to the SDO that the measurement book has been lost from the office. Thus, the measurement book was lost from the office of the SDO and not from the custody of the appellant. It has also been pointed out by the appellant's counsel that the appellant has been punished on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, though, he was never associated in the said enquiry. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer are one sided, not based on facts and are not reliable. The appellant is, thus, innocent in the matter.
5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department has pointed out that this measurement book belonged to the appellant. He was required to watch the movement of the measurement book. He failed to watch the movement of the measurement book and due to his negligence the book was lost. Furthermore, the Enquiry Officer had clearly held him responsible for the loss of this book and he is guilty of misconduct. Thus, he has been punished correctly.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record. We have also gone through the enquiry report which has been completed by the Enquiry Officer without associating the appellant. Furthermore, this fact cannot also be ignored that the report lodged with the S.H.O. Old Anarkali, shows that the Sub-Divisional Clerk reported to SDO that the measurement book was lost from the Sub-Division. Thus, we consider that the enquiry report is incomplete, especially keeping in view that the appellant was not associated in the enquiry and thus the findings of the Enquiry Officer are one sided. The justice demands that the enquiry is conducted properly after associating the appellant to provide him an opportunity to defend himself.
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh in the matter keeping in view the observations as given by us in para. Above.
' There will be no order as to costs.