SARFRAZ HASAN (MEMBER).--This appeal has been filed by Ghulam Sabir, ex-Chowkidar son of Hayat Muhammad resident of Mohallah Civil Hospital, Fateh Jhang, District Attock, under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act , 1974 in which he has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Rawalpindi Region and District Food Controller, Attock District as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal. Ghulam Sabir has prayed that order dated 14-6-1984 passed by the District Food Controller Attock (respondent No.2) terminating his service w.e.f. 16-4-1984 and order dated 21-9-1985 passed by Deputy Director Food, Rawalpindi Region (respondent No.1) rejecting his appeal may be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. The facts of the case are that on 15-4-1984 when the appellant was posted as Chowkidar at P.R.
Centre, Fateh Jhang it was reported that he had brought two young ladies on the premises of Government Godown for immoral purposes in the absence of Muhammad Amin, Chowkidar who had gone for lunch and Faqir Muhammad, Chowkidar, whom he sent away on leave Unauthorisedly. The local police raided the Godown and registered a case against the appellant and the two women under section 294, P. P. C .
On 18-4-1984, the District Food Controller, Attock (respondent No.2) placed the appellant under suspension. Subsequently on 10-5-1984, the District Food Controller (respondent No.2) in his capacity as Authorised Officer issued a charge-sheet against the appellant in the following words: - "Whereas I, Muhammad Yunus Tiwana, District Food Controller, Attock, have been directed by the authority under rule 5 of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, to proceed against you.
And Whereas, I consider that in the light of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to hold an inquiry and to appoint inquiry officer/inquiry committee, and the inquiry was conducted accordingly.
Now, therefore, you Ghulam Sabir son of Hayat Muhammad, P.R. Chowkidar (under suspension) are hereby charged as under:-
(1) that on 15-4-1984, Muhammad Amin, Chowkidar, went for lunch, leaving you and Faqir Muhammad, Chowkidar, behind at the centre, to look after the Government Godowns. In absence of the Chowkidar, went for lunch, you allowed yourself Faqir Mohammad, Chowkidar, to proceed to his home. In this way, you remained all alone at the centre. Taking advantage of the absence of the above-named both the Chowkidars, you arranged to bring two young ladies in the premises of Government Godowns, for some immoral affairs. A representative of the public of the area, watched your this activities and reported the matter to local police. The local police, on the public report, immediately rushed the spot i.e. P.R. Centre and caught the above stated two ladies alongwith you, red handed. The local police Fateh Jang chalked out a F.I.R. Under No.44, dated 15- 4-1984, against you and the ladies, caught on the spot red handed, under section 294.
(2) that after the above mishap, you were relieved from your duties at Fateh Jang to report the D.F.C's Office, Attock, for further orders, but you have not reported in the Sadar Officer, uptil now and as such you have absented yourself from your duty uptil this time.
(3) that you illegally allowed Faqir Muhammad, Chowkidar to proceed to his house, on the same date and time, which is irregular and beyond the reach of your competency.
2. By reason of the above you appear to be guilty of misconduct within the meaning of rules 2(1)
(d) and 3(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, as detailed in the enclosed statement of allegations and as such you are liable to disciplinary action under rules of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, which may involve in IMPOSITION of one or more of the penalities, prescribed by rule 4 of the said rules.
3. You are hereby required to submit your written defence to the above charges, .Within seven(7) days of the receipt of this charge sheet explaining to w-by disciplinary action, as aforesaid, may not be taken against you, and stating at the same time, whether you also desire to be heard in person.
4. Please take notice that your written defence should reach the undersigned, within the aforesaid period, failing which it shall be presumed that either you have no defence to offer or you have declined to offer the same and you accept the charges."
On 14-6-1984, the District Food Controller, Attock (respondent No.2) imposed major penalty on the appellant and terminated his service retrospectively w.e.f. 16-4-1984. The appeal filed by Ghulam Sabir was rejected by Deputy Director Food, Rawalpindi Region (respondent No.1) on 21-9-1985.
Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney and have also perused the record carefully with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the following main points: -
(i) The wording of the charge-sheet against the appellant clearly shows that enquiry had already been conducted when charge-sheet was issued against the appellant and this was a clear violation of rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
(ii) The District Food Controller (respondent No.2) issued a charge-sheet in his capacity as authorised Officer but the same respondent imposed a major penalty on the appellant by terminating his service. Under the Rules, the Authorised Officer could impose a minor penalty and major penalty could be imposed only by the Authority.
(i.e) The most serious charge against the appellant was that he brought two young women the premises of the godowns for immoral purposes. However, the police case registered against the appellant on this count ended in an acquittal in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Attock.
6. The learned District Attorney adopted the comments given by the respondents No.2 and submitted that the penalty imposed on the appellant was justified and he did not deserve to be retained in service.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. On going through the record of the case, we find that the departmental proceedings against the appellant were not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975. In this connection, attention is invited to the following: -
(i) Under Rule 6 (6) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, where an Inquiry Officer is appointed under Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 6, "the Authorised Officer shall simultaneously frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with a statement of allegations, explaining the charge and other relevant circumstances which are proposed to be taken into consideration and require the accused, within a reasonable time which shall not be less, than seven days or more than fourteen days from the day the charge has been communicated to him, to put in a written defence directly before the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be."
Under sub-rule (7) of Rule 6, "the Authorised Officer, immediately after communicating the charge to the accused under Sub-rule 6 shall forward such record or copies thereof and such other material as is necessary for the conduct of the inquiry to the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be."
Under Rule 7 (i) of PCS (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, "on receipt of the record and the explanation of the accused referred to in the preceding rule, the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be, shall enquire into the charge and may examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or in defence of the accused as may be considered necessary and where any witness is produced by one party, the other party shall be entitled to cross examine that witness."
Under Rules 7(6) of the above quoted Rules the Inquiry Officer shall submit his "findings and the grounds thereof to the Authorised Officer." held when the charge-sheet was issued by the Authorised Officer. This is further confirmed by the record of the case which shows that the Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 6-5-1984, whereas the charge-sheet was issued subsequently on 10-5-1984. This was a clear violation of the procedure laid down in Rule 6(6), (7) and Rule 7(i) and 7(6) of the afore-mentioned rules.
(ii) Under Rule 7-A of PCS (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the Authorised Officer shall "forward the case to the authority alongwith the charge-sheet, statement of allegations served upon the accused, explanation of the accused, the findings of the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be and his own recommendations regarding the penalty to be imposed" if it is proposed to inflict a major penalty.
(i.e) Under proviso of Rules 2(c) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975,"the authority may be authorised to act as an Authorised Officer". However, the charge-sheet issued by respondent No.2 clearly shows that he had been "directed by the Authority under rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 to proceed against" the appellant. This shows that respondent No.2 was not the authority.
Further, as reported vide 1982 PLC (C S.) 795, if the same person is designated as authority and also authorised to perform functions of an Authorised Officer, the appellant is deprived of examination of his case independently at two stages before it is decided at the appellate stage.
8. Keeping in view the detailed analysis of the case given above, it is obvious that departmental proceedings against the appellant have not been conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules. Any proceedings conducted in violation of the prescribed rules are without jurisdiction and a nullity in law. We, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the order dated 14-6-1984 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 21-9-1985 passed by respondent No.1 and remand the case to the competent authority for fresh proceedings against the appellant in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant is re-instated in service to clothe him with the status of a civil servant. His period of absence shall be decided by the competent authority. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.
M.Y.H/87/Lb/S