Khushal Khan, ex-Field Assistant, Agriculture has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 15-5-1982 of respondent No. 1, order, dated 28-8-1983 of respondent No. 2 and order, dated 24-4-1985 of respondent No. 3 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted on account of misappropriation of Government stores, embezzlement of Government money, inefficiency, misconduct and insubordination which was served upon him, on 28-1-1982. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, on 31-1-1982. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer, Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Jhang, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report, dated 24-4-1982 in which he held the appellant guilty of all the charges. The appellant was given opportunity of personal hearing by the Authority, on 2-5-1982 at Chiniot. He could not give satisfactory reply of any of the allegations. Therefore, the appellant was held guilty of all the allegations of misappropriation, misconduct, inefficiency and insubordination. The appellant was dismissed from service with immediate effect vide order, dated 15-5-1982 by the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Jhang. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad which was rejected vide his order, dated 28-8-1983. The appellant submitted another , review petition to the Minister for Agriculture, which was considered by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department and rejected vide order, dated 24-4- 1985. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i.e., Lal Khan Baloch, 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 argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the appellant has been held guilty Ion the basis of improper enquiry report where the appellant was not represented. The proceedings were conducted and the enquiry was completed ex parte wherein the appellant was not provided any chance to produce his witnesses. Thus, the enquiry is not a proper enquiry as required under the rules and the appellant has been punished by the respondents without proving the allegations against him. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the enquiry report be quashed and the appellant be given opportunities to prove his innocence. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel of the appellant that the appellant had 19 years long service and the appellant has been punished without keeping his length of service and previous service record. The punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has controverted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that a reference be made to the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer wherein the detailed circumstances have been mentioned. The appellant was afforded opportunities to defend himself but he did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. However, the evidence on the record was available against the appellant and the Enquiry Officer has correctly held the appellant guilty of allegations and misconduct on the basis of record available. Hence no injustice has been done to the appellant and he has been punished after his guilt was proved. The appellant was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing by the Authority but he could not satisfy him about his innocence. Thus, he was punished when the allegations were established against him.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have gone through the enquiry report and also the record of this case very carefully. I find that the appellant was afforded opportunities to defend himself by the Enquiry Officer but he did not avail these. I also find that the enquiry report is a complete document and the appellant has been held guilty on the basis of evidence available on record. He was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing by the Authority and he could not prove his innocence. Thus, the allegations and misconduct stood proved against the appellant. However, keeping in view the length of service of the appellant, I consider that the punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh and compulsory retirement of the appellant shall meet the ends of justice.
8. The result of the above discussion of the case is that the penalty of dismissal from service is modified to that of 'compulsory retirement'. The appeal is accepted to the above extent and the impugned orders are modified accordingly.
There is no order as to costs.
M.Y.H