' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Muhammad Jamil Asghar has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order of respondent No, 2, dated 6th February, 1983 and the appellate order of respondent No, 1, dated 19th July, 1984 be set aside and the appellant be ordered to be reinstated, with all consequential benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as a Food grain Inspector in the Food Department in May, 1981, was posted at Takht-Hazara, District Sargodha. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice by the District Food Controller, Sargodha (respondent No, 3), on 11th July, 1981 for six irregularities. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. In this reply he denied all the irregularities levelled against him. Respondent No, 3 issued another show-cause notice, dated 8th December, 1981 to the appellant. In this show-cause notice the respondent No, 3 had mentioned that he had documentary evidence against the appellant proving him guilty and that he was justified to dispense with the formal enquiry as required under rule 6 (3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. The appellant submitted his reply to this show-cause notice, also. He again denied all the charges levelled against him. Pending action of the above show- cause notices, another show-cause notice, dated 16th September, 1982 was issued to the appellant in which two allegations were levelled against the appellant. In this show-cause notice it was also stated that there was sufficient documentary evidence against the appellant which justified dispensation with a formal enquiry required under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant submitted reply to this show-cause notice as well, denied the charges and submitted his comprehensive explanation. Finally the respondent No, 3 recommended major penalty for the appellant to the respondent No,
2. The respondent No, 2, the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha passed an order, dated 6th February, 1983 in which he held the appellant guilty of misconduct and removed him from service, imposed recovery of Rs, 1,09,643.30 for the loss of 43680 tons of wheat and damage of 2,798 gunny bags. The appellant filed an appeal to the respondent No, 1, Director, Food Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide his order, dated 19th July, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties., Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire disciplinary action taken against the appellant is mala fide. The appellant has been made a scapegoat for the failure of his superior (respondent No, 3) who failed to act and help the appellant to save the stock of wheat in time. The mala fide is self-evident from the facts that in the show-cause notices the respondent No, 3 has presumed sufficient evidence against the appellant and has arbitrarily dispensed with the enquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
The respondent No, 3 who acted as the authorised officer was biased against the appellant from the reading of the show-cause notices. He was trying to save his own skin and to transfer the blame to the appellant. Hence, he should have not acted as authorised officer being not free from bias. The purchase of large quantities of wheat was as a result of the order of the respondent No, 3.
Who wanted subsequently to shift the burden of responsibility of his decision to the appellant. It has been also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations being of factual nature could only be properly decided by holding a thorough enquiry through a fair and impartial Enquiry Officer. The respondent No, 3 deliberately adopted procedure under rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules to cover up his own fault or the fault of his predecessor. A grave injustice has been done to the appellant by denying him enquiry and opportunity to produce all relevant material, witnesses and evidence. This is a case in which oral evidence was very important for the prosecution as well as defence in the enquiry and denial of the same has caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant. It has been submitted by the appellant's counsel that on the facts and circumstances of the case supported by the documents appended by the appellant alongwith the appeal, it is clear that none of the charges levelled against the appellant were proved. On the contrary, the appellant had worked very hard to save the stocks of wheat and succeeded in saving a very large portion of the same through personal efforts and initiative without any help and aid from the respondent No, 3 or other superior officers. This matter has been totally ignored or disregarded by the respondents during the course of proceedings. Concluding his arguments it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished arbitrarily, without proving the charges against him, thus, great injustice has been done with the appellant.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the appellant has been punished after the charges were duly proved against him. There was sufficient material on record to substantiate the charge against the appellant and it was not necessary to hold a regular enquiry. The appellant has been punished correctly after the charges stood proved against the appellant and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. We have also gone through the three show-cause notices served upon the appellant wherein the enquiry had been dispensed with. We are of the considered opinion that charges levelled in the three show-cause notices were of such a nature that it needed a thorough probe by appointment of an Enquiry Officer by giving an A opportunity to the appellant to produce all relevant material, witnesses and evidence and denial of the same has definitely caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh against the appellant by holding a regular enquiry so that the appellant could produce his defence. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service to bestow upon the status of a civil servant. The fate of the period of which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the competent authority after proceeding afresh against the appellant as mentioned above.
' There are no order as to costs.