' This appeal is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), dated the 26th October, 1976, affirming that of the learned Civil Judge, Lyallpur (Faisalabad), whereby the suit of the appellant challenging his dismissal from service from the post of tax clerk of the respondent, Town Committee, Chak Jhumra, was dismissed on the 24th April, 1975. The respondent Committee initiated inquiry for the alleged indulgence in corruption by the appellant, Abdul Hamid. The allegations against the appellant were that he acted as a tout of the ex-Secretary of the respondent Committee, Sheikh Muhammad Hanif. The appellant was charged with receiving bribe from various officials of the Committee and to have passed on the same to Sheikh Muhammad Hanif. The inquiry Officer was of the view that the whole matter was suspicious. He suggested imposition of minor penalty upon the appellant as, according to him, he saw no ground for imposing any major penalty. However, the respondent Committee formulated a different view. It considered the allegations of the corruption against the appellant to have been proved as a result of the inquiry and after giving him show-cause notice dismissed him from service. His departmental appeal against the order of his dismissal bore no fruit. Consequently, he took resort to legal action in Civil Court which also failed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant made grievance of the fact that the appellant had been afforded no access to the record of the Anti-Corruption Department and this fact prejudiced his case. The Inquiry Officer did not make use of the record of the Anti-Corruption Department rather he banked upon the statements of the witnesses which were recorded in the appellant's presence.
Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant as a result of non- availability of the record of the Anti-Corruption Department.
3. The contention of the learned counsel that the appellant had not been personally heard by the respondent before the order of his dismissal from service was passed hardly advances the appellant's case. The appellant never asked for being personally heard. He had been supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer when he had been given notice to show cause against the proposed imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. He submitted his reply to the show-cause notice which was duly considered by the Committee. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that he had not been given adequate opportunity of defending himself. Hence, the order of his dismissal from service does not demand any interference from the Civil Court. This appeal is without any force and is dismissed with costs.