MUHAMMAD MAHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN.- Muhammad Aslam, PTC Teacher has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 18.6.1987 and 24.9.1988 passed by respondents. The appellant has impleaded the District Education Officer (Male), Sargodha and Director of Education (S), Sargodha as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Clerk in the office of Assistant Education Officer (Male) Bhalwal was raided by a raiding party headed by a Magistrate on 20.3.1984 and he was caught red handed with Rs. 20/- as bribe money in connection with the pay bill of Zulfiqar Ali (Complainant) a school teacher. Ultimately he was arrested and was tried in an anti-corruption case before the Anti-Corruption Judge, Sargodha. The Anti-Corruption court held that appellant guilty of taking a sum of Rs. 20/- as illegal gratification in connection with his official functions as to processing of pay bill in office of A.E.O. Bhalwal, convicted him under section 161 PPC and taking a lenient view sentenced him to an imprisonment till rising of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- vide order dated 5.5.1985. The fine of Rs. 1000/- was paid by the appellant. The appellant did not challenge this sentence before the High Court which has attained finality. As such the appellant was guilty of gross misconduct.
The D.E.O, made a probe and after obtaining a copy of the decision of the court the D.E.O. (Male) suspended the appellant on 14.1.1987 and served upon him with a show cause notice for dismissal under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. During the course of departmental proceedings the appellant was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 18.6.1987 by the District Education Officer (Male) Sargodha (Respondent No. 1). The appellant feeling aggrieved filed a departmental appeal before the Director Education (Schools)
Sargodha (Respondent No. 2) which was also dimissed on 24.9.1988. Hence the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of the Department with care.
4. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was dismissed illegally and in contravention of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. Conversely learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and argued that the appellant was convicted under section 161 PPC for taking illegal gratification of Rs. 20/- from a school teacher. The appellant did not challenge this conviction before the High Court and it has attained finality. The appellant is not only guilty of gross misconduct but Ire is also guilty of moral turpitude as well. As such he is not fit to be retained in Government service. So he has been rightly dismissed from Government service by the Competent authority. The impugned orders passed by respondents may therefore be allowed to stand.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on scrutiny of the record we find no irregularity/illegality in the departmental proceedings conducted by the respondents against the appellant. The appellant's counsel has also failed to point out any legal defect or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by respondents which are therefore, unexempting. The appellant can be proceeded against as and when the fact are known to the competent authority. On a careful perusal of the record we find that the appellant was found guilty for taking illegal gratification and he was rightly dismissed from Government service by the respondents. The charge of gross misconduct, corruption and moral turpitude are fully proved against the appellant and as such he deserves no leniency. Even the appellant did not challenge this sentence before the High Court and the sentence has attained its finality.
We find that the District Education Officer (Male) Sargodha as an Authority rightly dismissed the appellant from service and the Appellate Authority also did no wrong in rejecting the appeal of the appellant.
Resultantly we see no illegality or irregularity on the point of law or fact or illegal exercise of jurisdiction in the impugned orders pasted by respondents which are upheld. As such the instant appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.