1. Parties heard. Record perused.
2. Briefly the facts of this case are that on the basis of- a complaint disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The Director-- General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab was appointed as Authorised Officer and Ch. Abdul Majid, Director Excise and Taxation, Gujranwala as enquiry officer. Appellant was issued charge-sheet alongwith statement of allegations which are reproduced as under:- "Charge-sheet While posted as Excise and Taxation Officer, Okara during the period from 7-1-1987 to 14-1-1989 you committed acts of gross malfeasance and for your ulterior motives to register as many as 244 tractors (203 Millat Tractors, 36 Al-Ghazi Tractors and 5 Facto Tractors) on faked/bogus and made up documents which in fact were purchased by different persons through obtaining loans from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan or other financial institutions and on this account the tractors were required to be registered in the joint names of the loan offering agencies and the concerned loanees. But registration of these Tractors was allowed by you in the name of unauthorized persons as if these were purchased on cash payment and no mention of the loan giving institution was made on registration file and certificates. Through this act of allowing registration of tractors on made up documents in complicity with M/s. Rashid Ahmad, then Motor Taxation Clerk now Excise & Taxation Inspector, Kasur and Ulfat Ali, Motor Taxation Clerk, Okara, you intentionally transgressed the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Ordinance requiring the production of bona fide documents of ownership and form "H" at the time of registration. The registration of tractors in these cases was liable to be refused in view of the apparent deficiency of production of bona fide documents. "
3. Statement of allegations of Ch. Shaukat Ali, the then Excise and Taxation Officer, Okara now at Faisalabad.
4. A complaint was received in which serious allegations were levelled against Ch. Shaukat Ali that while posted as Excise and Taxation Officer, Okara (from 7-11-1987 to 14-1-1989) he registered non- transferable Tractors in the name of un-authorised persons though the same were purchased through acquiring loans from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The allegations were got probed through Divisional Squad of the Directorate of Excise and Taxation, Lahore. On the basis of the complaint and by virtue of checking of relevant record it was noticed that during the period of his posting at Okara 394 Tractors were registered by him in favour of different persons as if these were purchased by them on cash payment and were transferable without any restriction. Out of these 336 authority letters were shown to have been issued by Millat Tractors, 44 by al-Ghazi Tractors and 14 by Fecto Tractors. When these authority letters were checked up it was certified by the aforementioned manufacturers that 203 Millat Tractors, 36 Al-Ghazi Tractors and 5 Fecto Tractors had been registered against faked/bogus and made-up documents. Thus a total of 244 Tractors were found to have been registered on forged documents. It is clear that the officer had not only registered these Tractors as transferable ones but also registered all these Tractors in the names of persons other than the original owners/loanees. It is evident that all this had been done with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention with the active connivance of M/s. Ulfat Ali, Motor Taxation, Clerk and Rashid Ahmad, Motor Taxation Clerk remained posted under him. The officer is, therefore, prima facie involved in corruption and is guilty of gross misconduct within the meaning of rules 2(1)(d), 3(b) and (e) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D ) Rules, 1975 for which he is being charge-sheeted accordingly.
5. The appellant in his reply denied the allegations. The inquiry officer conducting enquiry proceedings against the appellant submitted his report to the authorised officer who after considering the inquiry report issued a show-cause notice to the appellant purposing the imposition of major penalty of removal from service. After considering the reply of the appellant and giving him personal hearing the, authorised officer recommended imposition of major penalty of removal from service upon the appellant. In view of the nature of the charges Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department issued a show-cause notice for imposition of major penalty upon the appellant after affording him personal hearing. Accordingly the appellant was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 14-1-1990 passed by respondent. The appellant filed review, petition which was rejected on 7-4-1990. Hence the present appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record minutely with the assistance of representatives of the Department.
7. During the course of arguments the main contention of the appellant's counsel is that the appellant joined service as Lecturer in the Education Department and on his selection as Excise and Taxation Officer he was relieved with an assurance of retention of his lien in the 'Education Department to join against temporary post of Excise and Taxation Officer in the Excise and Taxation Department., Therefore, entire proceedings were rendered in this case without lawful authority.
8. Conversely learned D.A. Opposed the appeal and argued that the impugned orders passed by the' respondents be allowed to stand in the light of comments/report furnished on behalf of respondents.
9. After having gone through the file of this case and on scrutiny .Of the record I find that the contention raised by the learned counsel-for the appellant has weight because under the rules authority in respect of the appellant was the Secretary, Education and not the Secretary, Excise and Taxation as appellant's lien was never terminated by his parent Department i.e. Education Department, where he was working as confirmed lecturer. Learned D.A. Could not rebut the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. Viewed in the aforesaid context the impugned orders dated 14-1-1990 and 7-4-1990 are set aside and case of the appellant is remanded to the competent authority for holding afresh inquiry in accordance with law. Parties be informed accordingly.