' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---The instant appeal had been brought by Mr. Muhammad Khursheed, Assistant Conservator of Forests against the order dated 18-6-1989 of respondent No, 1 by which the order dated 5-12-1985 of Secretary Forests was upheld to the extent that instead of stoppage of two annual increments of the appellant only one increment was ordered to remain stopped on permanent basis. The appellant has impleaded Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary and Secretary, Forests Department of the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as respondents.
2. The relevant facts of the case as are contained in the memo of appeal of the appellant are that the appellant is in the service of the Forests Department. He joined that service in the year 1967 and was promoted as Assistant Conservator Forests on 2-4-1983. He rendered unblemished and spotless service in his Department and it was this reason that his promotion from the post of Forests Ranger to the post of Assistant Conservator Forests was ordered. It was for the first time that a show-cause notice was issued to him by respondent No, 2 in the year 1983 vide No, 1135/83, dated 2-4-1983. The appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice and refuted the charges brought against him in detail. But the respondent No, 2 without associating the appellant with the inquiry proceedings and without taking into consideration his explanation A awarded him the punishment of stoppage of his two annual increments on permanent basis. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of punishment, the appellant brought appeal before respondent- Government which was partly accepted and instead of two annual increments, the punishment of only one increment was maintained. The appellant seeks reversal of the impugned order on the following grounds:--
(i) That under the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) the authorised officer was bound to incorporate material evidence in the show-cause notice relied upon by him in support of the allegations against the appellant. The show-cause notice issued to the appellant was lacking necessary details of the specific charges, material facts and evidence and as such the whole proceedings against him were unprecedented and bad in law.
(ii) That in view of nature of allegations the case of the appellant was to be dealt with under Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules which provided a fair and just opportunity to a civil servant to defend himself against the frivolous allegations brought against him. It is a cardinal principle of law that out of two procedures prescribed by the Rules, only the favourable one was to be adopted in case of a civil servant. But in case of the appellant, departure of the prescribed rule of law was committed by the authorised officer.
(iii) That there is nothing mentioned in the show-cause notice as to what punishment was proposed to be awarded to the appellant and as such the notice was lacking an essential requirement of the law.
(iv) That there is no evidence to base and justify the penal action against the appellant.
(v) That under the Rules two opportunities are offered to a civil servant accused of certain allegations viz. One at the time of issuance of the allegations and reply thereof while the other is given after going through the reply and evidence before awarding the proposed punishment. But the appellant was deprived of the second opportunity of defending himself. The provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules and its sub-rules (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are discriminatory in nature and the same should be struck down by this Tribunal.
3. The appellant's prayer is that the impugned order be set aside and the punishment awarded to him be cancelled. The objections filed on behalf of the respondents are that the reply of the appellant to show-cause notice was found unsatisfactory and he was rightly punished for the charges brought against him under the provisions of the Rules and that the procedure followed by the authorised officer was quite in accordance with the said Rules.
4. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments as were addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel of each party. We have also perused the report of Conservator of Forests Mirpur as was earlier submitted by him to the Chief Conservator of the Forests under his Office No, 1149, dated 12-11-1979. On the basis of that report the authorised officer (the then Secretary, Forests Department) proceeded against the appellant under Rule 6(3) of the Rules and served him with a show-cause notice. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the charges brought against him in the show-cause notice referred to were not relevant to appellant and that a proper inquiry was necessary to be held against the appellant. But he was condemned unheard without associating him with any inquiry proceedings and affording him the opportunity of producing his evidence in rebuttal. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the procedure prescribed by the Rules was not followed by the authorised officer and the punishment awarded to the appellant being violative of the principles of the natural justice was not maintainable. The show-cause notice dated 2nd April, 1983 as was served upon the appellant contains a long list of the charges and it would be in the fitness of the things to reproduce below the relevant portion of the same for reference purposes:- {{URDU TEXT}} The reply submitted by the appellant to this show-cause notice is covered by eight pages on the file in which some of the charges brought against him are stated as not relevant to the appellant. It is very true that some of the charges given in the show-cause notice are not relevant so far as the appellant is concerned. In fact, the appellant was proceeded against alongwith other accused civil servants jointly in accordance with the Rule 2, sub-rule (2) of the Rules referred to and the charges brought against them were also put together. However, the charge No,3 alongwith its sub-charges {{URDU TEXT}} of the show-cause notice which pertain to the additional marking of the trees by the appellant is definitely covering the period of the appellant while he was posted as Range Officer at Bagh. According to Forests Department the period of posting of the appellant as Range Officer at Bagh is between January 1978 to February 1979 and it is not denied by the appellant too. It is stated by the appellant that he had taken the charge of the post of Range Officer at Bagh in early February 1978 and had continued as such till 24-1-1979. He has also accepted it to have made the additional marking of trees under the orders of Conservator of. Forests. But his grievance is that, the additional marking was carried out quite in accordance with the rule of procedure and the charges brought against him are baseless and incorrect. The appellant has not put forward any complaint that he was maliciously proceeded against by his Department. The Inspection Note in respect of the output of the Forest timber extracted from 'LAS DANNA' Forest was recorded and prepared by Mr. Ghulam Yaseen, the then Conservator of Forests, Mirpur on 12-10-1979 when the appellant was posted out from Bagh Sub-Division and for that reason he might not have been associated with the inspection of spot. The relevant portion of the Inspection Note marked as para (30) is reproduced below:-- {{URDU TEXT}} This para. Of the Inspection Note shows that the appellant was held responsible for illegal marking of 117 trees equal to 15,725 C.Ft timber. There was no symbol of marking on the stumps of the trees and the serial number of the trees marked was also not kept intact. In his explanation the appellant had tried to shift his responsibility upon other officers of the Department and there is little doubt in it that he failed to make a satisfactory account of the show-cause notice served upon him. As regards the legal objections raised on behalf of the appellant, it shall be noted here that the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 and its Sub-Rules 2 to 7 of the Rules provide a speedier disposal of the allegations and for sustaining a minor penalty a civil servant gets sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The question whether the provisions of this Rule are repugnant to Islam does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal (PLD 1988 SC (AJK)
53. At the same time, we do not find the impugned order to be discriminatory in nature. In the instant case, an over all survey of the additional marking made by the appellant in the forest 'Las Danna', was made by the Conservator of Forests and there does not exist any reason to disbelieve him. The authorised officer has passed the impugned order after he was fully satisfied from the Inspection Note of the Conservator of the Forests and after going through the explanation of the appellant in response to the show-cause notice and there does not appear any violation of the Rules. The show-cause notice issued on 2nd of April, 1983 was prepared quite in accordance with law and procedure with a margin of 18 days for submitting reply to the said show-cause notice by the appellant. The show-cause notice was issued after it was decided by the authorised officer that no further inquiry in the matter was necessary and the punishment to be awarded was also proposed and incorporated in that notice.
The procedure adopted by the authorised officer is duly prescribed by the Rules and no departure has taken place in the application of those Rules in regard to appellant. The authorised officer was quite competent to dispense with the constitution of Inquiry Committee because he held the view that it was not necessary to order further inquiry in the matter.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that we find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.