JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Shahbaz Qadir, formerly Research Assistant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 31.8.1983 and 25.8.1986 passed by the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively.
The appellant has impleaded the Director of Industries and Mineral Development and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Lahore as respondents By virture of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 17.3.1981, the appellant attacked and gave a severe blow on the face of Dr. Aitzaz Barket, Senior Research Officer in the premises of Industrial Research Laboratory, Lahore in the presence of Hamid Asghar, Research Officer. Asmat Ullah Malik, Research Officer, Government Industrial Research Laboratory and many other officers.
The appellant also used abusive and threatening language until he was over-powered by the said Hamid Asghar. On receipt of a report from Dr. Aitzaz Barkat, Senior Research Officer and having been found guilty of misconduct in a preliminary enquiry, the appellant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 17.3.1981. Thereafter the appellant was charge sheeted under Punjab Civil Servants (E &D) Rules, 1975 on the following charge:- " On 17.3.1981 (AN) Mr. Shahbaz Qadir Research Assistant attacked Dr. Aitzaz Barkat, Senior Research Officer in the premises of the Government Industrial Research Laboratory and gave a severe blow on his face in the presence of Mr. Hamid Asghar Research Officer of the officeof Secretary Essential Articles Board and Mr. Usmat Ullah Malik, Research Officer, Government Industrial Research Laboratory. He also used abusive and threatening language and threatened the use of knife until he was overpowered by Mr. Hamid Asghar.
3. The appellant submitted his explanation dated 12.4.81 as reproduced below: - On 17.3.1981 we (Asmat Ullah, Research Officer Mr. Mahboob Hussain Naqvi Steno to Secretary Essential Articles Board, Mr. Maqsood Iqbal, I and Maqsood Pervaiz Qureshi, Research Assistant and Dr. Aitzaz. Barkat) were standing at the footsteps of the corridor of the Laboratory. We were in discussing matters of society and office. While discussion M.P. Qureshi said to Mr. Barkat that you are not doing well and doing a conspiracy with Mr. Abdul Rehman Joint Director (Research) to hit Qadir's carreer purely on the basis of malice while side by side you are giving examples of four kalif as and versions of Hadces, Fiqa, At that moment, I said, "He was pious fraud". This is true I said him.
He started abusing me, in the meanwhile Maqsood Iqbal dragged Aitzaz Barket to a distance .
Every centimeter of aforesaid is 100% true and not more. The legend of blow not only false but frivolous. I have a great grievance over the , administration about handing over me the suspension order without knowing the truth and facts. What a routine system of office. Sir Mr. Aitzaz. Barkat is doing his utmost to give an irrepairable loss to my career by each change of Joint Director (Research) from years. He is deprived by God every blessings of life and he is taking revenge from human beings. It is nothing but a malafide move, one can reach at the focal point of the matter after careful weighing of pros and cons.
4. After considering the explanation submitted by the appellant which was not found satisfactory.
Mr. A.K. Ansari, Joint Director (Supply) was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into and conduct proceedings in respect of the charge against appellant. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report dated 22.7.81 to the Director of Industries & Mineral Development, Government of the Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.1) wherein he held the appellant guilty of the above charge. On the receipt of the inquiry report a show cause notice dated 14.6.83 was issued to the appellant by Director of Industries & Mineral Development respondent No.1. The appellant appeared before the respondent No.1 and was heard in person who after giving due consideration to his reply dated 23.6.83 of the show cause notice awarded penally of removal from service vide his impugned order dated 31.8.83.
The appellant preferred a departmental appeal dated 26.9.83. Before Secretary Industries & Mineral Development, respondent No.2 against the impugned order-of Director of Industries & Mineral Development dated 31.8.83 (respondent No.1) against the charge quoted in para 2 above.
Respondent No.2 rejected the appellant's departmental appeal vide his impugned ort.Er dated 25.8.86. Hence the present appeal.5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and minutely perused the record with the assistance of representative of the Department with care. During the course of arguments it was intimated by the respondents that the post of Research Assistant held by the appellant was abolished on dissolution of the Government Industrial Research Laboratory Lahore w.e.f. 1.7.85 by the Government of the Punjab.
6. The impugned orders dated 31.8.83 and 25.8.86 have been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant mainly on the following grounds: -
(a) that the procedure laid down under E&D Rules, 1975 was not strictly followed during the proceedings against the appellant.
(b) that the Respondents were not competent to pass impugned orders in this case against the appellant.
(c) that in the circumstances of the case the appellant could not be removed from service on the basis of the material available on record.
7. Conversely the learned District Attorney seriously opposed the appeal and during h s arguments successfully rebutted all the above contentions of the appellant's counsel with the help of relevant record. He argued that the impugned orders of the respondents did not suffer from any legal or factual lacuna and were therefore,unexceptionable.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and find that the case of the appellant was dealt with and decided by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 leaving no legal lacuna. After having checked up the record we find no illegality on the point of law or of fact or anyillegal exercise of the jurisdiction in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any legal defect or patent illegality in the proceedings undertaken by the respondents against the appellant which might have caused any perjudice to the appellant. We have minutely considered the statements made by Dr.Aitzaz Barkat, Senior Research pfficer and Shahbaz Qadir Research Assistant (Appellant) which are reproduced below:- STATEMENT OF DR. AITZAZ BARKAT. SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER.
On 17th March, 1981 at 13.10.p.m. While I was discussing with Mr. Hamid Asghar Research Officer Essential Articles Board and Mr. Asma t Ullah Malik, Research Officer, Industrial Research Laboratory in the main entrance of the Research Laboratory suddenly some one from behind came and gave a severe blow on my face and on turning I found that he was Mr. Shahbaz Qadir, Research Assistant. He used threatening language and use of knife when Mr. Hamid Asghar Research Officer overpowered him. Mr. Shahbaz Qadir left the Research Laboratory. In the meantime Mr. N.A. Leghari, Secretary, Essential Articles Board came out and he was told about the incident. The Secretary Industries & Mineral Development Department was also apprised of this incident immcdiatedly thereafter and a written complaint was filed with the Director Industries.
STATEMENT OF MR. SHAHBAZ QADIR. RESEARCH ASSISTANT.
On 17th March, 1981 we (Asmat Ullah Research Officer, Mr. Mehblijob Hussain Naqvi, Stenographer, Mr. Maqsood Iqbal, Stenographer, Essential Articles Board, Mr. Maqsood Pervaiz Gureshi, Research Assistant, Dr. Aitzaz Barkat, S.R.O, and I) were standing at the footsteps of the corridor of the Industrial Research Laboratory at about 1.00 P.M. We were discussing the matters of the society and the office. While in discussion Mr. Maqsood Pervaiz Qureshi, Research Assistant said to Dr. Aitzaz Barkat that he was not doing well and chalking a conspiracy with Mr. Abdul Rehman, Joint Director (Research) to hit Mr. Shahbaz Qadir's career purely on the basis of malice. While side by side he used to give example of Kalifs Hadilh and Fikah occasionally just to show himself pious. At that moment I said that he was a pious fraud. It is true I said him, no doubt. Immediately he started abusing me and Mr. Maqsood Iqbal drag him to a distance. It is false and absolutely incorrect that Mr. N.A. Leghari Secretary Essential Articles Board rushed to the place. This did not happen. We went to our rooms and Dr. Aitzaz .Barkat rushed to Mr. N.A. Leghari's office for telephone call because normally our telephone remains out of order. Later on Dr. Anwar a Lawyer of the court and friend of Dr. Aitzaz Barkat came and took him out of the Laboratory in his car. Next day I was told by the office that I had been issued suspension orders on the complaint of Dr. Aitzaz Barkat, SRO.
9. During arguments learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut the charge against the appellant by means of any authentic oral or documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to .Prove that the appellant was involved falsely or maliciously in this case by the respondents or the complainant Dr. Aitzaz Barkat. In fact during hearing of the appeal the appellant had himself admitted before this Tribunal that he did hit his superior Dr. Aitzaz Barkat in the face with his fisst blow, during the above narrated occurrence.
10. On a careful perusal of the above quoted statements of the parties concerned and after going through the relevant record minutely we find that the appellant did commit the offence for which he was punished by the respondents and the charge against the appellant stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The charge against the appellant is of such a grave and serious nature that the appellant deserved out right dismissal from Government service, but he has already been dealt with leniently by the respondents, though the appellant's grave misconduct did not deserve any leniency.
11. On scrutiny of the record we find that the appellant never took the plea of denial of the chance of cross examination in his reply to the show cause notice before the respondent No.1 which was the most appropriate stage to do so. Relevant record shows that the appellant was given proper opportunity of cross examination during the departmental proceedings. As such the objection raised on behalf of the appellant at a much belated stage is merely an after thought. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to prove that during the proceedings the appellant was prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. In the case of appellant the respondents have acted rightly and within their legal and jurisdictional competence in accordance with the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Industries Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1962 read with the relevant provisions of he Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975.
12. During scrutiny of the record it has however been observed that the impugned order dated 31.8.1983 of the "Authority" (respondent No.1) pertains to only one charge as reproduced in para 2 above, but in the impugned order dated 25.8.86 of the appellate Authority (respondent No.2) besides the aforesaid charge incorporated as charge (a) a second charge has also been incorporated therein as charge (b) which is not the subject matter of the present appeal, but constituted the basis of an altogether different enquiry held against the appellant during 1981.
Since this second charge (b) is in no way related to the instant appeal, it has found its way into the impugned order dated 25.8.86 of the "Appellate Authority" (Respondent No.2) erroneously. This error has not been referred to or pointed out by any of the parties at any stage, and it has not caused any prejudice to the appellant in the instant appeal. It will, therefore, stand deleted from the impugned order dated 25.8.86 of the "Appellate Authority" (Respondent No.2).
13. In view of what has been stated above, we find that no case has been made out by the appellant's counsel either on merits or on law for interference by this Tribunal. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to 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.