SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --This is an appeal by Kh. Bashir Ahmad, XEN, Local Government against the order of respondent/Government dated 8-8-1988 by which a major penalty was imposed upon him under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred as Efficiency and Discipline Rules) and it was ordered that .The recovery of a sum of Rs.28,147 being his share of the loss of Government money shall be effected from the salary of the appellant. The appeal is also directed against the order dated 9-1-1990 of the respondent/Government by which the review petition of the appellant brought before that respondent, was rejected. The appellant has impleaded Azad Government through Chief Secretary, Secretary Works, Azad Kashmir Government and Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Muzaffarabad as respondents for seeking his remedy against them.
2. In the memo of his appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that during the tenure of his posting as XEN, Mirpur Division in She year, 1982 a charge---sheet was supplied to him containing many unfounded and baseless charges. He submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet and as a result of inquiry held against him he was exonerated of all the charges excepting one charge. On 11-3- 1986 another charge-sheet was supplied to him containing the same allegations as were put to him in earlier charge-sheet for the reply. The appellant applied to the Authorised Officer for the appointment of an inquiry Officer other than the subordinate officers of the Chief Engineer because the latter had himself levelled allegations against the appellant and that his subordinate officers will not be in a position to conduct a fair and an impartial inquiry against him. But his application to that effect was rejected and he was once again ordered to face inquiry, for the charges brought against him. On the basis of inquiry report, the appellant was ordered to pay a sum o-- Rs.28,147 to make the loss good under the impugned order dated 8-8-1988. The appellant seeks reversal of the impugned orders on the following grounds:--
(a) That the inquiry has not been conducted. In accordance with the requirements of the law and as such the impugned orders :are not maintainable for being illegal and unlawful.
(b)That no statement of allegations was enclosed with the charge-sheet and the punishment awarded to the appellant was ordered in violation of the rules of procedure concerning the, departmental inquiry against a civil servant.
(c) That the reply of the appellant to the charge-sheet has not been taken into consideration and the appellant has not been provided with an opportunity of personal hearing and to lead his evidence in rebuttal.
(d) That the charge is shorn of details and as such the appellant feels himself prejudiced by the punitive action of the respondent/Government under the impugned orders.
(e) That no show-cause notice was served to the appellant nor a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to him before making the impugned orders of punishment by the respondent/Government.
(f) That the charge-sheet has not been framed in accordance with the rules and is violative of the relevant rules of procedure.
(g) That the result of the first inquiry was totally ignored by the second Inquiry Officer without specifying any reason. The appellant has been condemned with a mala fide intention to damage his future career of service.
(h) That the proceedings initiated against the appellant in second inquiry were not in accordance, with the provisions of Civil Servants Act and the rules made there under.
3. It is prayed by the appellant that the impugned orders may be set aside and the penalty imposed upon him be remitted.
4. By a short order dated 15-5-1990, the above appeal was admitted in this Tribunal for regular hearing and the respondents were called upon to submit their objections, if any. In a written statement dated 14-1-1991, the respondents denied the allegations of the appellant and submitted that he was imposed major penalty on the basis of a regular inquiry conducted against him under the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977. It was also submitted by them that the appeal was .Not maintainable for being time-barred.
5. We have examined the contents of the appeal and the impugned orders copies of which are placed on the appeal file. We have also considered the arguments as were addressed on behalf of the appellant and the respondents. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that he was firstly charge---sheeted on 25-10-1983 and an inquiry was held into the charges brought against him by Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad Butt, Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. The Inquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant for all the charges excepting one charge and without taking any action on the first inquiry report, the appellant was once again supplied with the same charge-sheet on 11-3-1986 and this time on the basis of report of Inquiry Officer a major penalty was imposed upon him for effecting recovery of an amount of Rs.28,147 from his salary to make up the loss good Under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977, the Inquiry Officer was required to submit his report to the Authorised Officer within a period of three months but in case of the appellant it was not submitted by him. According to the learned counsel a major penalty must not have been imposed upon the appellant on the basis of an inquiry report which was completed and submitted by the Inquiry Officer after a period of one year without seeking extension in the period specified for the completion of inquiry. It is submitted that an act prescribed to be performed in a particular method must be performed by following that method alone or not at all. In support of his contention, he has referred our attention to the case-- law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir cited as PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K)
37. It is next argued that the appellant had made an application to the Authorised Officer for appointing some Inquiry Officer other than the Officers subordinate to the Chief Engineer because the later had initiated the inquiry against him and the Officers subordinate to him were not expected to do justice with him. But his request was not acceded to and the inquiry was made over to an officer of the P.W.D. And the appellant was prejudiced by that action of the Authorised Officer. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the statement of allegations was not supplied to the appellant nor a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to him for defending himself before the Authority.
6. It is very true that the appellant was firstly charge-sheeted on 25-10-1983 and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad Butt, Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The inquiry was completed by him within the given time and after he had submitted his report to the Authority, the inquiry was, found to have not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It is this reason that a second inquiry was ordered to be made into the charges brought against the appellant. This time Ch. Ameer Afzal, Director, Central Design Office, P.W.D. Was appointed as Inquiry Officer to probe into the charges brought against the appellant. In our opinion the Authority was quite competent to order second inquiry in the matter especially when the first inquiry was found by him to be not in accordance with the provisions of Efficiency and Discipline Rules and the Authority has, therefore, not committed any departure from following the rule of procedure prescribed for the holding of inquiries against the civil servants.
7. The appellant was charge-sheeted alongwith Mian Muhammad Afzal, S.D.O. And Khadim Hussain, Overseer who were at the relevant time Incharge of Project Bhimber Samahni Road'. The appellant and his co-accused officers were supervising the construction of a portion of Bhimber Samahni Road from 1 to 10 miles but the work done by the contractor on spot was found unsatisfactory and much below the required standard by the Chief Engineer. On the basis of the report of Chief Engineer a second inquiry was made by Ch. Ameer Afzal who was duly appointed as Inquiry Officer by the Authority himself. Ch. Ameer Afzal conducted the inquiry and found all the charges proved against the appellant and his co-accused officers excepting charge No.5. It is, no doubt, that the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 11-3-1986 while he submitted his report at a belated stage on 7th of May, 1987. There is nothing on the file whether the Inquiry Officer had applied to the Authorised Officer for extension of time or not. But the Inquiry Officer has explained the causes of delay that had occurred to him in completion of the inquiry report within the given time and the explanation tendered by him shows that he was busy with some other inquiries which were already pending with him and perhaps this explanation was found satisfactory by the Authority while recording punishment against the appellant. It may be a deviation from the strict compliance of the relevant rule of procedure yet the appellant does not get much help to earn his acquittal of the charges proved against him. Apart from that the delay in the completion of inquiry must have occurred because three officers of the Department were jointly proceeded against and the Inquiry Officer had to examine the witnesses who were the civil servants posted at far off places and were busy in connection with the performance of their official duties. It is true that on a reference dated 14-3-1977 by the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an act prescribed to be performed in a particular method should be performed by following that method alone or it must not be performed at all. But the facts of the present case are quite different to those as were placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a reference by the President. In the case cited above the question that arose before the Court was that whether the appointment of Chairman of Public Service Commission by the Chief Executive was valid enough without the previous approval of the President and the Court had held it that it was not so far having been made without the formal approval of the President. In the instant case, the approval of Authority for initiating inquiry against the appellant is already on the file and no departure of any rule of law has been committed by the Authority or the Authorised Officer excepting that the Inquiry Officer is found to have failed seeking proper permission of the Authority for extension of time specified for the completion of inquiry. In our opinion, this type of omission on the part of Inquiry Officer will not render the inquiry proceedings against the appellant to be illegal and ineffective. If the appellant has been ultimately punished on the basis of that inquiry report then the extension of period of inquiry by the Authority shall be presumed to have been given impliedly and for that reason alone the impugned order of punishment against the appellant cannot be held illegal.
8. It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that the Authorised Officer has failed to make proper order for holding second inquiry within the period of three days provided by Rule 6, sub-rule
(2) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It may be noted here that the order of second inquiry was made by the Authority himself on the basis of the report of Authrised Officer, and therefore, he had not to make any second order for holding fresh inquiry in the present case. Hence the Authorised Officer has not committed any error in following the relevant rule of procedure. It may be further noted here that a detailed charge-sheet was supplied to the appellant for his reply and for that reason the statement of allegations was hardly necessary to be supplied to him. A show-cause notice is not provided in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules especially in those cases where major penalty is imposed upon an accused civil servant. The appellant was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the Authority and hence the requirement of the rule of law was fulfilled.
Similarly the supply of a copy of the inquiry report to an accused civil servant is not provided in efficiency and Discipline Rules and the Authority has not departed from following the rule of procedure.
9. We have examined the inquiry proceedings and we find that the complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the appellant and he was allowed full opportunity to cross-examine them. Further, the appellant has himself made a statement at the close of the inquiry that he had no more questions to put to the witnesses and that he had no more evidence to produce before the Inquiry Officer. In view of the aforesaid statement of the appellant which is dated 14-4-1987 and is duly signed by him, we can easily conclude that he was never prejudiced by any action of the Inquiry Officer, the Authorised Officer and the Authority. The impugned order of punishment was made by the Authority on 8-8-1988 and a review petition was filed by the appellant before the Authority (respondent-Government) quite in time. This review petition was rejected by the Authority on 9-1-1990 and the appellant was required to bring his appeal at this forum within a period of thirty days from the date of the order of the Authority. But the appellant has brought his appeal at this forum on 22-2-1990 and it was undoubtedly submitted after it was delayed by fifteen days. The appellant claims that he had applied for the copies of the order on 21-1-1990 and the same were issued to him on 6-2-1990 and after excluding the period spent in obtaining copies of his appeal at this forum, his appeal was within time. There is nothing on the file to show that copies-were issued to the appellant on 6-2- 1990. Hence the appeal is held barred by limitation also.
10. For the above reasons, we -find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.