' Nawab Din, ex-Naib Qasid has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against order dated 14th March, 1984, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari dismissed his appeal and maintained the original order of dismissal passed by respondent No,
1. He has impleaded the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Vehari and Deputy Commissioner/Appellate Authority, District Vehari, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be reinstated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted by Ch. Bashir Ahmad Dogar, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/ Authorised Officer, on the charge. "that on 15th September, 1982, Mr. Noor Ullah Khan, E. A. C. Vehari, alongwith Police of P. S. Saddar, Vehari conducted raid on his house and four kilograms of contraband Charas and similar weight of Opium and 3.5 K.g. Of Bhang was recovered. It was also observed that that he was carrying on the illegal trade of Narcotics."
' Statement of allegations was also served upon him. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. A detailed inquiry was held in the matter by Mr. Zahid Hussain Qadri, Enquiry Officer/Magistrate 1st Class, who found that the charges against the appellant stood proved. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Vehari vide his order dated 13th July, 1982, visited him with major penalty of dismissal. He filed appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, who vide his order, dated 28th March 1983, accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of detailed judgment so given by him. The appellant was subsequently reinstated by the order of Deputy Commissioner Vehari, dated 16th August, 1983. A fresh enquiry was held in this case in accordance with the verdict of the Commissioner and the appellant was allowed to produce defence. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 26th October, 1983, dismissed him from service after finding him guilty of the charges. He filed before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Vehari, who vide his order dated 14th March, 1984, did not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have preused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the alleged recovery of narcotics does not pertain to official duties, therefore, it was not a misconduct within the meaning of the rule 3 (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. He further submitted that as the appellant was facing criminal trial it was incumbent upon the Department to await the verdict of the trial Court. He has submitted that the findings arrived at in the impugned orders were based upon surmises and conjectures. He has also made grievance that once first impugned order had been vitiated it was incumbent by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner being authority should have held a fresh inquiry and should not have relied upon the previous inquiry report. It has been submitted that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Vehari, having previously dealt with the case of the appellant, was not qualified to pass the impugned order.
6. On the other hand learned District. Attorney has fully adopted the comments of the respondents and submitted that the very action of the appellant was against the conduct rules and falls within the meaning of misconduct and it was an offence involving moral turpitude. It was submitted by the learned District Attorney that there was no bar under the rules to proceed against a civil servant against whom a criminal case was pending before the Court. With regard to the remand of the case by the learned Commissioner, it has been submitted that it was made on technical ground as A.D.C. (G) being not declared as authority in the case of Class IV and the case was remanded on this score only. After the said remand the appellant was given opportunity of personal hearing and was dismissed after removing the flaw which was occurred earlier.
7. 1 have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, remanded the case on the ground ,that according to the Board of Revenue Delegation of Power Rules, 1985, Deputy Commissioner was required to appoint a CEP/PCS Officer to take action as appointing authority or the authority competent to impose major penalty in respect of Class IV employees of the Deputy Commissioner's office. It was further observed by the learned Commissioner on his question the representative of the Department stated that the Deputy Commissioner Vehari has not so far been appointed for such officer as the authority. In view of the above it was held that the A.D.C. (G) was not competent to pass the impugned order. The learned Commissioner without going into the merits of the case set aside the orders. The appellant was reinstated in service in compliance to the said order and fresh proceedings were initiated against him. Meanwhile the A. D. C. (G) was declared as competent authority in respect of Class IV employees and the case was taken up by the A.D.C.(G) in the light of the latest situation. The appellant appeared before him and could not satisfy the authority of his innocence. His appeal before the Deputy Commissioner also failed. In these circumstances it is not possible to hold that the proceedings taken against the appellant suffered from any provision of law as the lacuna stood removed by rectification and the A.D.C. (G) was competent to proceed against him.
8. With regard to the merits of the case it has been proved on record that the house was raided by Mr. Noorullah Khan, E. A. C., Vehari, fully established the charges against the appellant. The same was corroborated by Abdul Ghafoor. The appellant also examined two witnesses in his defence evidence which were duly recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
9. I have examined the plea of the appellant in which he has stated that somebody else came in his house who was stranger and planted this narcotics in his house. This defence has rightly been disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer as well as the A.D.C. (G). The Deputy Commissioner held that no stranger can be allowed to sit in the house because it is only relatives and friends and known persons who are allowed to sit as guests according to the norms of the society to which the appellant belongs. He has failed to show as to who was stranger and why he planted these articles in his house. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant has fallen victim of certain conspiracy of his enemies. The recovery of narcotics in his house in the presence of Magistrate 1st Class and other independent witnesses is sufficient proof to connect with the said contraband articles. Whatever may be the result of the criminal case in the trial Court, a civil servant found in possession of narcotics, would certainly be guilty of misconduct of grave nature, as this heinous trade has already started eating life of youth of this country and cannot be taken lightly by the authority.
10. The result is I do not find any justification to interfere with the two well-considered judgments of the learned A.D.C. (G) as well as of Deputy Commissioner, Vehari and dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.