1. ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--This is an appeal of Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan dismissed S. I.
2. Police under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974. The appellant while he was posted as S. I. at Police Station Kala Bagh, was charged with misconduct on the basis of a number of instances of his wilful absence from duty, involving himself in a criminal case, asking for leave on false pretext and making false entries in the daily diary of the Police Station to which he was posted. 7 charges were made out against the appellant which are produced in Annexure *B' on record. The departmental authorities made efforts to serve the charge-sheet on the appellant during his unauthorised absence from duty, but without success. Under the circumstances, the enquiry against the appellant was conducted ex parte by a duly appointed Enquiry Officer. The appellant was found guilty of all the charges by the Enquiry Officer. A show-cause notice was issued by S. P., Mianwali on 2-10-1969 requiring him to furnish his reply thereto within a period of 7 days. The show-cause notice was duly received by the appellant. The appellant failed to submit his reply within the stipulated period of 7 days. His reply to the said show-cause notice was received in the S. P.'s office on 16-10-1969, while the impugned order of his dismissal had been passed by S. P., Mianwali a day earlier on 15-10-1969. The appellant preferred an appeal before the D. I. G., who, after having carefully considered the appeal, passed a detailed order. The D. I. G. exonerated the appellant of two charges but upheld the punishment on account of other charges having been established. The appellant also impugns the appellate order of the D. I. G. dated 29-4-1970. The appellant also stated to have appealed to the I. G. but without success. In substance, the appellant holds that-- (0 the proceedings have been carried out against him ex parte and are, therefore, illegal ; (ii) he has been condemned unheard in that no charge-sheet was served on him and his reply to show-cause notice was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order of his dismissal; (hi) the full effect of dismissal of the criminal case under section 253, Cr. P. C. against him in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Lyallpur has not been taken into account while passing the order of his dismissal; (iv) the earlier removal of the appellant from List 'E' on 14-4-1969 and his reversion to the rank of A. S. I. tantamounts to reduction in rank and that too without hearing the appellant. This amounts to arbitrary action against him and is, as such, illegal; (v) the appellant was a direct recruit to the post of A. S. I., and was appointed as such by the D. I. G., Multan Range and on the face of it S. P., Mianwali was not the competent authority to dismiss him. The circumstances leading to the non-service of charge-sheet on the appellant have been clearly set out by the Enquiry Officer in his findings, as also by the competent authority in the show-cause notice--the letter having been duly received by the appellant. It is recorded in the show-cause notice that :-- "A formal charge-sheet alongwith summary of allegations was drawn up against you and A. S. I. Akbar Hayat was deputed to effect the service of the charge-sheet. In spite of all efforts made by the S. I. by visiting your native village as well as Punjab University Hospital, Lahore, where you deliberately evaded service of charge-sheet. Thereafter, charge-sheet was sent to you by post per registered cover on the address of your native village but you were not found present at your native place nor at Ward No. 3, Gali No. 18 of Samundari. Eventually, this registered letter was received undelivered. In view of the fact that yo u were deliberately avoiding to face departmental enquiry and continuously absented yourself without sufficient cause, a departmental enquiry was started against you in absentia." The above facts have also been repeated in the final order of dismissal passed by S. P., Mianwali. It is, therefore, clear that all reasonable efforts to serve the charge-sheet on the appellant were made by the authorities and if the charge-sheet could not be served, the appellant is himself responsible for that. In the West Pakistan Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1960 (as amended from time to time) rules 6 and 6(A) set out the procedure to be followed for enquiries in case where minor aod major penalties respectively are envisaged. Rule 6(B) of the same Rules is relevant and is reproduced below :-- "Nothing in rule 6 or 6-A shall apply to a case : *** where the authority competent to dismiss or remove a person from service, or to reduce in rank, is satisfied that, for reasons to be recorded in writing by that authority, it is not reasonably practicable to give the accused an opportunity of showing cause." It is to be observed that in the instant case the relevant authority had set out in writing in the show-cause notice its reasons for dispensing with the service of the charge-sheet and participation of the appellant in the enquiry proceedings. As such, we cannot find any illegality in the ex parte nature of the enquiry proceedings. If the S. P. had erred in quoting the Rule from an unamended copy of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, it is not a sufficient cause to vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. In the show-cause notice served on the appellant he was required to submit his reply within 7 days. On his own admission the reply of the appellant reached S. P.'s office on 16-10-1969, while in the meantime tne dismissal order had been passed by the S. P., Mianwali a day earlier on 15-10-1969. lathis case also we find that the case of the appellant has gone by his own dafault and there is no force in his argument. It is also relevant to point out that although the appellant had forfeited his right to show cause due to his own lapses, the D. I. G. at the appeal stage, in sympathy with his case, not only provided him an opportunity for a personal hearing but also took cognisance of his belated reply to the show-cause notice. The relevant portion of the appellate order of the D. I. G. is reproduced below :-- "With a view to giving him full opportunity I sent for the appellant and he appeared before me on 28-4-1970. He has not added anything to the grounds of the appeal and all that he said was that he was made a victim of the excesses. As the proceedings were held in absentia, I would take into consideration the reply given by the appellant on the show-cause notice in addition to the grounds on which the finding is challenged in the appeal " The grievance of the appellant that the effect of his acquittal in the criminal case against him has not been duly considered as a mitigating factor in the charges against him is belied by the following quotatigns from the appellate order of the D. I. G. and we find no substance in this argument :-- "As regards charge No. 1, the appellant produced a copy of the order of the Court under which he was discharged in the case under section 353, P. P. C. The trial Court did not believe the story of the prosecution that the A. S. I. was at P. S. Samundari on 11-1-1969--the date of the occurrence of the assault case, ln view of the positive judgment of the Court I have no alternative but to bold that the charge stands rebutted. *** It is a fact that the Court relied on the reports Exhs. DA, DB and DC in rebuttal of the charge that the A. S. I. was not present at P. S. Samundari on 11-1-1969. The questions of the delayed submission of the case diaries and remaining away of the A.
3. S. I. from the Police Station for a period more than that was necessary were not before the Court and as such the judgment does not help him much. I hold the appellant guilty of charge No. 2." The appeal against the earlier order of reversion from the rank of S. I. and removal of his name from List 'E' would be relevant only if his subsequent dismissal order was set aside which is not so in the instant case. As regards the plea of the appellant that he had been dismissed by an authority not competent to take such an action against him, it is to be observed that he never agitated this point before the departmental authorities either in the appeal against the order of dismissal to the D. I. G. or subsequently to the I, G. This is evidently an afterthought. Vide proviso fat to clause 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, we have no jurisdiction to take cognisance of matters which have not been appealed against before the relevant departmental authorities. After carefully going through the various documents and orders of various authorities on record, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and we as such dismiss the appeal in limine.