' Javed Akhtar, Ex-Foodgrains Supervisor, Faisalabad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, and Director Food, Punjab as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. By virtue of this appeal Javed Akhtar has prayed that impugned order dated 8-2-1983 removing him from service and impugned order dated 19-10-1985 rejecting his appeal be set aside.
3. The facts of the case are that on 2-2-1982, the District Food Controller, Faisalabad issued the following show-cause notice against the appellant in his capacity as Authorized Officer:- "According to the F.I.R. No, 306, dated 29-12-1981 you Mr. Javed Akhtar during your posting as Food grains Supervisor at Buchiana committed the following irregularities of serious nature:- (1)that you attempted to remove 17 bags of wheat unauthorized with ulterior motive from Government Godowns, Buchiana P.R. Centre on 28-12-1981 in the absence of Mr. Ghulam Rasool, Food grains Inspector.
(2) that on demand of Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Rafique, Chowkidars of the said P.R.
Centre you could not produce any Gate Pass or authority of the said stocks.
(3)that on receipt of information through Abdul Sattar, Sweeper the Food grains Inspector, Incharge Mr. Ghulam Rasool, reached at the spot and found the Van No, 4514-LSV loaded with 17 bags of wheat stock and in the meantime you alongwith the Van Driver left the spot.
(4) that the Food grains Inspector lodged an F.I.R. Against you at Police Station, Lundianwala vide F.I.R. No,306, dated 29-12-1981 and the Police is investigating the case against you.
' By the reasons of above you have been found guilty of misconduct under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975.
' There is sufficient material and evidence on record available against you based on facts indicating the irregularities, malpractices pointed out above which can justify dispensation with a formal enquiry required under rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It has, therefore, been decided that formal enquiry as per rule quoted above is not necessary.
The matter can be processed further in accordance with rule 6(3) of the Rules ibid. It has provisionally been decided to impose any of the major penalties indicated under Rule 4(I)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 which can include your dismissal from service.
' You are, therefore, given this notice to show cause within seven days of the receipt of this notice as to why the action proposed above should not be. Taken against you. Your written explanation/reply should reach the undersigned supported with necessary facts and evidence. In case your written explanation is not received within the stipulated period it shall be presumed that you have nothing to offer in your defence and ex parte proceeding shall be concluded against you."
' The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 21-2-1982 stating that the allegations against him had been framed on the basis of a false report by Muhammad Rafique, Chowkidar whose increment had been stopped on the report of the appellant.
' The Authorised Officer considered the reply of the appellant as unsatisfactory and recommended to the Authority (respondent No, 1) the removal of the appellant from service.
' Case F.I.R. No, 306, dated 29-11-1981 at P.S. Lundianwala mentioned in the show-cause notice was tried by the Special. Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha who acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him. However, respondent No, 1 did not give him the benefit of this acquittal and vide his order dated 8-2-1983 removed the appellant from service. His appeal was also rejected by respondent No, 2 on 19-10-1985. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy District Attorney and have also perused the record carefully with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the following main points:-
(I) The show-cause notice against the appellant was issued against him on the basis of a false report of Muhammad Rafique Chowkidar whose increment had previously been stopped on the report of the appellant. Muhammad Rafique, Chowkidar had therefore, submitted the false report against the appellant due to previous enmity.
(ii) On the basis of the false report submitted by Muhammad Rafique, Chowkidar Case F.I.R. No, 306, dated 29-11-1981 under section 380/411/409, P.P.C. Was registered against the appellant at P.S. Lundianwala District Faisalabad. Although a criminal case had already been registered against the appellant on 29-11-1981, the Department issued a show-cau.Se notice against him on the same basis on 2-2-1982.
' Vide his judgment dated 18-11-1982 the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Region acquitted the appellant in the abovementioned criminal case. While acquitting the accused the learned Judge had not used the word "benefit of doubt"; he was acquitted because the prosecution had failed to prove its case against him.
(iii) It is settled law that reinstatement of a civil servant cannot be refused even in case of acquittal on benefit of doubt.
(iv) During evidence before Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Ghulam Rasool, Foodgrains Inspector had admitted that Supervisor was competent to shift wheat from one go down to the other. In this case, the wheat was being shifted by the appellant from Go down No, 4 to Go down No, 2.
Therefore, the shifting of 17 bags of wheat from one godown to the other could not be interpreted as theft or misappropriation.
(v) The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption had given detailed reasons for acquitting the appellant. These reasons were sufficient to exonerate him.
(vi) The show-cause notice issued against the appellant charged him with attempting to remove 17 bags of wheat with ulterior motive. Therefore, this was a charge of corruption and misappropriation and a regular enquiry was necessary to establish the truth of these allegations.
However, the appellant was removed from service on the basis of show-cause notice in spite of the fact that he had been acquitted during the judicial trial.
(vii) In view of the following judgments of this Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the impugned orders may be set aside and the appeal be accepted:
(1) Case No, 930/1170 of 1984--Muhammad Aslam ' Case No, 931/1246 of 1984--Liaqat Ali ' Case No, 933/1195 of 1984--Shaukat Ali versus ' S.P. Sahiwal, D.I.-G. Multan and I.-G.P. Punjab, Lahore.
(2) Case No, 658/374 of 1986--Muhammad Akram v. S.P. Lahore and D.I.-G. Lahore.
(3) Case No, 265/731 of 1984--Moazam All Case No, 266/758 of 1984--Muhammad Iqbal Case No, 267/729 of 1984--Salabat Khan v. S.S.P. Faisalabad, D.I.-G. Faisalabad and I.-G.P. Punjab, Lahore.
(4) Case No, 88/83 of 1983--Muhammad Rashid v. I.-G.P. Punjab, Lahore, D.I.-G. Multan and S.P.
Sahiwal.
(5) Case No, 603/15 of 1982--Muhammad Rafique v. S.P. Vehari, D.I.-G. Multan and I.-G.P. Punjab, Lahore.
(6) PLD 1974 SC 393 and 1983 SC 162.
6. The learned Deputy District Attorney adopted the written objections filed by the respondents and submitted the following main points:-
(i) The appellant's plea that bags were blocking the passage was not convincing as these were lying there for the last many months.
(ii) As there was no urgency, the bags could have been removed through the approved Contractor.
(iii) There was no gate pass and the bags were being shifted without the knowledge of the Food grains Inspector who was in charge of the center.
7. On careful examination of submissions made by both sides and the evidence on record, it is obvious that the allegations on which the appellant was removed from service in departmental enquiry had already been rejected during the judicial trial. Under the circumstances, his removal from service on the basis of show-cause notice under rule 6(3) of P.C.S. (E & D) Rules, 1975 ignored the basic principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in this behalf. In this connection attention is invited to the following points:-
(i) The opening lines of show-cause notice dated 2-2-1982 issued against the appellant are as follows:- "According to the F.I.R. No, 306, dated 29-12-1981 you Mr. Javed Akhtar during your posting as Foodgrains Supervisor at Buchanan committed the following irregularities of serious nature:- ' Case F.I.R. No, 306, dated 29-12-1981 against the appellant ended in his acquittal during judicial trial as is evident from judgment dated 18-111982 recorded by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Region. It is, therefore, clear that the allegations which led to the removal of the appellant in the departmental enquiry on 8-2-1983 had already been rejected during judicial trial ending in his acquittal on 18-11-1982.
' The written objections filed by the respondents did not show that the department had filed any appeal against thc order of acquittal by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. Under the circumstances, the Department had two options, either to accept the judicial verdict in favour of the appellant or to hold a regular enquiry against the appellant under rule 6(5) & (6) of P.C.S. (E & D) Rules, 1975.
' In this particular case, the Department neither filed the appeal against the order of acquittal nor held an independent regular enquiry to establish the truth.
' The allegations against the appellant included ulterior motive, theft and criminal breach of trust.
' In the case of Siddique Javed Chaudhry v. Government of the Punjab reported vide PLD 1974 SC 393, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a regular enquiry was necessary to establish the truth where allegations of corruption and misappropriation were made against the accused.
(ii) Vide its order dated 8-2-1983, the Authority removed the appellant from service with the following observations:- "Although the official was tried by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption and has been acquitted giving him a benefit of doubt, but the undersigned, being very well aware of procedure of handling and duties of the Foodgrains Supervisor, cannot give such benefit in the departmental proceeding."
' A plain reading of the judgment dated 18-11-1982 recorded by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption shows that the appellant was acquitted because the prosecution had failed to establish the charge. The judgment does not mention acquittal on benefit of doubt. This is evident from the following extracts from paras. 7 and 8 of the judgment:- "7. It is in evidence that there were two or four passengers in the wagon. It is in evidence that 10/12 persons the palledars loaded the bags of wheat in the wagon. None of those persons have been cited as P.Ws. The Investigating Officer might not have been able to know the names of passengers as they slipped away from there before the arrival of the A.S.I. But it cannot be said that the names of palledars could not be known to the two chawkidars and Ghulam Rasul and the Investigating Officer. But they have not been cited as P.Ws. The presumption is that the palledars do not support the prosecution story. This fact when weighed against the evidence of Abdul Sattar further weakens the prosecution story. The solitary statement of Abdul Sattar about the presence of Javed Akhtar at a distance of one killa, while he has not stated that Javed Akhtar was at the place where the wagon was being loaded cannot be taken to be sufficient to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the wagon was loaded under the orders of Javed Akhtar or with his connivance. The palledars and the passengers in the wagon were the persons to help this. Court to come to correct conclusion but the prosecution has deprived this Court of the benefit of their statements. In these circumstances from the evidence on record it cannot be said that a case against Javed Akhtar accused warranting conviction can be established. Even if the formal evidence of the remaining P.W. An A.S.I. Police is recorded it is not going to make the prosecution story any stronger. It is no use to keep this case pending against Javed Akhtar accused a public servant. To keep it pending would amount to wastage of public time. He is acquitted of the charge "8. Even if it is proved that the accused Javed Akhtar got the wheat bags loaded no case is going to be established against him because it is in the prosecution evidence that he was competent to shift wheat bags from one godown to the other. It is also in prosecution evidence that the place where the wagon was stopped is on the way which leads to the other godown. If it is proved that bags were loaded at the instance of the accused then this prosecution evidence is going to defend him. It is no use to keep this case pending against Javed Akhtar accused a public servant. To keep it pending would amount to wastage of public time. He is acquitted of the charge."
(iii) Even in case of acquittal on benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as follows in case of Muhammad Sardar Khan v. Sr. Member (Estt), Board of Revenue reported vide 1985 SCMR 1062:- "We are, therefore, of the view that the concept of honourable acquittal was unjustifiably imported by the learned Tribunal in determining the question of the validity of the appellant's removal from service. The reliance on the Court's judgment in Government of West Pakistan v. Mian Muhammad Hayat PLD 1976 SC 202 in so far as it related only to the question of pay during period of suspension, was inapt and irrelevant. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is 'allowed with costs and the impugned order of appellant's removal from service dated 19-4-1977, shall be set aside, with the result that the appellant shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date the said order took effect."
8. Keeping in view the detailed analysis of the case given above, I have come to the conclusion that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and that in the conduct of departmental proceedings against him, the rules of natural justice and the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan was ignored. I, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside impugned order dated 8-2-1983 passed by respondent No, 1 and impugned order dated 19-10-1985 passed by respondent No, 2 with all consequential benefits. However, it is left open to the competent authority to consider holding an independent regular enquiry against the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 keeping in view the rules of natural justice and the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in this behalf.
' There will be no order as to costs.