' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- S.M. Younas Shami, XEN, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders, dated 13-5-1980 as well as 15-3-1983. He has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 13-5-1980 and 15-3-1983, be set aside and the appellant be exonerated of the charge.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Murree in the year 1958, took over as Sub-Divisional Officer on 10-10-1958. A departmental enquiry was ordered against the appellant and others. A charge-sheet alongwith statement of allegations was also served upon him. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet. Departmental inquiry was ordered against the appellant and others under the E&D Rules, 1960. A number of Enquiry Officers were appointed periodically and finally the matter was entrusted to Ch. Muhammad Sherif, O.S.D. II (Enquiries), Government of the Punjab, Enquiries/Anti-Corruption Cell, Services, General Administration and Information Department. Mr. Naeemuddin, Deputy Director/Technical Officer of the Office of Chief Engineer, Highway Department, Punjab, Lahore, was detailed as representative of the Department to prosecute the matter before the Enquiry Officer.
' The enquiry was concluded and on the result of the enquiry, the appellant was imposed minor penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. He made representation against the said order through review petition to the said authority, but the same was rejected on 15-3-1983. 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 entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the matter was entrusted to the Anti-Corruption Establishment also against him as well as against his other colleagues and positive finding was arrived at in his favour, but the same has not been taken into consideration and he has been punished without any justification. The main plea of the appellant in this case is that the entire work was executed during the tenure of Mr. Nazir Ahmad Shah, S.D.O. While the appellant had taken over the charge after 1 (1/2) months of the completion of work. It has been stated that the measurement was recorded when the said Nazir Ahmad Shah was Incharge of the said work. Learned counsel for the appellant came out with a plea that as the bill pertained to the claim which was approved by the said S.D.O. The appellant had no hand in offering his recommendation for the excessive rates. It has been vehemently argued that Nazir Hussain Shah directed the same contractor to clear the road and to pay him the better rates, and the appellant made no recommendation whatsoever and the responsibility of overpayment to the contractors could not be shifted to his shoulders. It has been claimed that the Executive Engineer vide his letter, dated 17-11-1958 forwarded the matter to the Superintending Engineer and recommended the rate of Re.1 and 8 annas for snow cutting. The Superintending Engineer approved the rate of Re.1 per 100 c.Ft. For the removal of frost vide letter, dated 13-1-1959. The matter was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the appellant for necessary action. The only disputed work was extra 2 feet width on both sides of the road, and the new rate of Re.1 was applied to the work alone. The appellant vide his letter No, 306, dated 25-1-1959, brought to the notice of the XEN the financial implications as a result of approval of Re.1 per eft. When the sanction of the S.E. Was received, the XEN ordered the S.D.O. (appellant) to prepare the bill which he did. When the rate was enhanced to Re.1.8 per eft. By the Superintending Engineer, the appellant brought to light the huge overpayment vide his No, 2453, dated 31-7-1959. In this letter he protested that huge payments had been made for the work done in 1956-57 but the S.E. Took no notice.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney had adopted the comments of the Department and has submitted that he was unaware of the report in favour of the appellant, by the Anti-Corruption Establishment and resisted the claim of the appellant on the ground that he was fully held responsible for the excessive payment, by the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the punishment so awarded tc him, was justified.
7. We have gone through the uetailed report of Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Establishment Northern Region, Peshawar, comprising of 25 pages and have taken into account the findings of the said authority which is at page 18 to 20, highlighting the entire case of the appellant and the ultimate findings that the entire responsibility fell on the shoulders of Nazir Hussain Shah and not on the appellant and concluded that the appellant was not a party with other staff and had nothing to do with any foul play. It has also been held in the said report that the idea of the appellant that he was not in league with his superior officers or subordinates staff and could not be held responsible for the allegation so levelled against him was correct. We have placed this entire report on the record and have no reason to disagree with the analysis of the said report, which has been concluded after lot of fact findings and probe into the matter by the S.P.
Anti-Corruption Establishment, Northern Region, Peshawar. Similarly we have also taken into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer and find that this earlier elaborate inquiry report conducted and concluded in the year 1963, was not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer, particularly the plea that all the work had been completed during the tenure of Nazir Hussain Shah mentioned in the said inquiry of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, for which the appellant lodged protest and expressed disagreement with his seniors, bringing to their notice the irregularity of financial implications on their proposed action. We are of the considered opinion that if the Enquiry Officer had taken into consideration all these salient features of the appellant's case, which were so highlighted as early as 1963, i,e, 5 years after the cause of action, the result would have been different. The inquiry was instituted by Mr. Muhammad Sharif, O.S.D.. Enquiries in the year 1979, although the matter related to the year 1958 i,e, after 21 years when Mr. M.A.K. Tareen was the Chief Engineer. The appellant made a request for examination of the said Chief Engineer in his defence who was still alive and even alive now, but his request was not acceded to. He was not given copy of the inquiry report, which was very essential as directed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in such matters, so as to apprise the defendant the crux of the findings, which he would be required to meet at the time of personal hearing. In this way, we are fully justified to rely on the earlier probe of the Anti-Corruption Establishment which was made only five years after the occurrence, whereas the present inquiry report was taken in hand in 1979, almost after 21 years.
8. In view of the above, we find ample justification in the plea of the appellant that he was not at all concerned with the payment made to the contractor and rather made lot of protests regarding financial implications in the said matter.
9. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders in so far as the appellant is concerned, whereby his increment for two years was withheld without cumulative effect and upheld by the appellate authority vide its final order, dated 15-3-1983. There will be no order as to costs.