NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---This is an appeal filed by appellant Syed Javed Iqbal Bokhari, under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the inquiry report dated 4-1-1992 by the Enquiry Committee, which was duly constituted by the competent Authority.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant was an officer of Secretariat Group (B-20) of the Federal Government former Secretary, Government of Punjab Cooperative Department. Due to his official position as a Cooperative Secretary, he got granted loans of Rs.5,76,61,600 to himself and his closed relatives and associates, from the Cooperative Finance Institutions/Corporations. The case was referred to the Federal Government on 31-10-1991 with the request to allow the Provincial Government of Punjab to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, under the E&D Rules, 1973 applicable to him. It was also requested that Chief Secretary, Punjab (respondent No.2) may be appointed a Authorised Officer to proceed further in the matter. The Federal Government vide its letter dated 3-2-1991 conveyed the-- approval of the competent Authority for.
The initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The Chief Secretary' (respondent No.2) was appointed as Authorised Officer. The Chief Secretary/A. O. Appointed an Enquiry Committee comprising as under:-- (i)Mr. Asad Ali Shah, Senior Member, BoardConvener of Revenue, Punjab.
(ii)Mr. Akhtar Said, Member (Judicial-1),Member Board of Revenue, Punjab.
(iii)MalikJehangirKhan,MemberMember (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
On retirement of Mr. Asad Ali Shah, Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, his successor Dr. Imtiaz A. Khan was appointed by the Government as Convener to the Enquiry Committee.
2. The enquiry reveals that the following loans were obtained:--
(A) Loans from Services Cooperative CreditRupees Corporation Limited:
1. Advance to Syed Javed Iqbal Bokhari.1,75,37,191
2. Resource International.94,97,330 Messrs Resource International is a firm owned by one Mr. Shahzad Ali who is brother-in-law of the accused officer.
Both the loans obtained from Services Cooperative Credit Corporation are mentioned in an inspection note dated 28-2-1990 available in the office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab.
(B) Loans from Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation Ltd.:
1. Resources International.73,87,914
2. Mr. Abdul Razzaq (Internal Auditor) of17,39,165 Resources International.
Loans received from Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation are substantiated by a statement of loans signed by the Vice-- Chairman of this Corporation.
Mr. Abdul Razzaq an Internal Auditor of Resource International obtained a loan worth Rs.17,39,165 through misuse of influence by the accused officer and beneficiary of the funds advanced in his name is Mr. Shahzad Ali of Resource international who is the brother-in-law of the accused officer.
(c)Funds belong to Ravian Cooperative2,15,00,000 Housing Society were transferred to Punjab Textile and Industrial Cooperative Society.
Mr. Shahzad Ali, brother in law of the accused officer, is the Chief Executive of this Society.
Total:Rs.5,76,61,600
3. Conclusion/findings of the inquiry committee are as under:- "Allegation (A), and Allegation (B) 1 to the extent of loans obtained by himself and Resource International from Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation, are proved against Mr. Javed Iqbal Bokhari, the accused officer. With respect to these allegations, it is also proved against him that he misused his official authority for the obtaining of these loans for himself as well as for Resource International.
Allegation (B) 2 concerning the loans obtained by Mr. Abdul Razzaq from Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation, and Allegation (C) concerning the transfer of funds belonging to Ravian Cooperative Housing Society to Punjab Textile and Industrial Cooperative Society, are not proved.
Thus the charges as contained in the Charge Sheet are proved against the accused officer Mr. Javed Iqbal Bokhari, as regards the taking of large sums of money as loan in his own name from the Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. By misusing his official authority; and, also with regard to the obtaining of large sums of money as loans by his brother-in-law Mr. Shahzad Ali (owner of Messrs Resource International) from Services Cooperative Credit Corporation and Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation by misusing the accused officer's official authority:"
4. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report with its findings on 4-1-1992 to the then Chief Secretary/Authorised Officer. The Authorised officer submitted his recommendations to the Establishment Division (respondent No. 1) for submission of the same to the Authority for final decision on 25-2-1992. The Authorised Officer before forwarding his recommendations to the Authority had provided the appellant an opportunity to offer his explanation. A show-cause notice dated 14-1-1992 alongwith enquiry report was also served upon the appellant under rule 5(iv) of Government. Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.
5. According to the Enquiry Report, the fording of the Committee was that the appellant had used undue influence on the Management of the Cooperative Societies to grant loans to himself and his close relatives and associates. Meanwhile the appellant submitted his revision petition to the President and also filed two civil suits at Lahore in the Civil Courts. Finally he appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal on 9-3-1993.
6. The appellant alleged in the appeal that the alleged amount was not a loan but is an investment. The appellant had requested the Committee to stop the proceedings as Civil Court had issued status quo orders but Enquiry Committee continued the proceedings and declared the appellant guilty of misconduct and imposed a major penalty without any show-cause notice. The appellant moved a Revision Petition under Rule 6-A of the E&D Rules, 1973 to the President through Chief Secretary Punjab, which was not forwarded to the President. The major penalty of removal from service has been imposed without show-cause notice, which is against the law, as there is no finding either of corruption or of misconduct against the appellant. The appellant had not committed any act contrary to Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. No general or special restrictions have been prescribed by the Government regarding drawing loans by the Government servants from the Cooperative Societies. So the appellant had not committed any offence under section 10 of Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellant had no concern with the borrowing of money by his brother-in-law Shahzad Ali and his firm Resource International, as he had borrowed alleged amount before the appointment of the appellant as Secretary Cooperatives.
Therefore, the impugned Notification may kindly be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service.
7. In rebuttal the respondents denying the grounds of the appeal said that prior to imposition of penalty of removal from service, the appellant was given a show-cause notice on 14-1-1992. On his request he was granted personal hearing on 12-2-1992. His objections were duly considered and finally penalty was imposed on him with the approval of the Competent Authority. There is no provision under Rule 6-A of E&D Rules, for filing a Review Petition. The Rule simply empowers the Authority to call for record of any case pending before or disposed of by the Authorised Officer and pass such orders as it may deem fit. The Authority is not required to entertain any petition under that Rule.
8. On the directions of the former Chief Minister (Ghulam Haider Wyne), the Punjab Government had conducted a preliminary inquiry into the complaints against the Cooperatives Departments and it was discovered that the appellant Syed Javed Iqbal Bokhari, had obtained a large sum of money as loans from Cooperative Finance Corporations in his own name as well as in the names of his close relatives and associates. The Enquiry reveals that following loans were obtained:
(i) Loans from Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd.: ---Advance to Syed Javed Iqbal Bokhari. Rs.1,75,37,191 ---Resource International. 94,97,330
(ii) Loans from Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation Ltd.: -Resource International.73,87,914 ---Mr. Abdul Razzaq (Internal Auditor) of Resource International.17,39,165
(iii) Funds belonging to Ravian2.15,00,000 Cooperative Housing Society, transferred to Punjab Industrial Cooperative on 13-12-1989 and further transferred within 3 days as to Resource International.
Total: Rs. 5,76,61,600
9. In connection with civil suits, the respondents submitted that in spite of a civil case before the Civil Court there is no bar of proceeding against the appellant. Taking loans of this magnitude from an Institution over which a Government servant has official influence comes under the ambit of Rule 10 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Appellant Syed Javed Bokhari held the charge of Secretary, Cooperatives from 24-5-1988 to 31-1-1991. All the transactions between Resource International and Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation Ltd. Referred to in para. 8(e) of appeal, occurred while the appellant was Secretary, Cooperatives Department. This issue was conclusively decided against the appellant in the enquiry conducted against him.
10. The appellant according to inquiry report is guilty of corruption and misconduct. He obtained a large sum of money as loans from various Cooperative Finance Institutions/Corporations in his own name as well as in the names of his close relatives and associates. The respondents prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed.
11. We have heard at length the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Shahid Hamid and for the respondents Assistant Advocate-General Punjab, Mr. Sajjad Hussain Shah and Mr. Zakaullah Jan, Section Officer, Establishment Division, and minutely perused the inquiry report of the Committee dated 4-1-1992 and also gone through the record of the case. The inquiry report of the Committee is self-explanatory and exhaustive on the subject. During the inquiry, the Committee examined the following witnesses and the documents which were produced by the State against the appellant:-- ILIST OF WITNESSES: (1)Mr. Zulfiqar Awan, Chairman, Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Limited.
(2)Mr. Wali Muhammad, Controller of Credit of Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Limited.
(3)Mr. Muhammad Amin, Circle Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rawalpindi.
(4)Mr. Sardar Shoaib Ahmad of Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation Limited.
(5)Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed, Circle Registrar, Cooperative Housing Societies, Bahawalpur.
(6)Mr. Afzal Sheikh, President Ravian Cooperative Housing Society.
(7)Mr. Kamran Rasool, Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gajranwala.
IILIST OF DOCUMENTS: (1)Inspection Report of Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd.
(2)Inspection Report of Habib Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd.
(3)Report of the President, Ravian Cooperative Housing Society.
(4)Loan file of Mr. Javed Iqbal Bokhari including Exhibits PF, PD/2, PD/1, PG, PH, PJ, PK, PM, PN, PO and PP. (5)Withdrawal Slips.
(6)Loan Account File of Messrs Resource International (containing the entire documents of loan account).
(7)Letter dated 29th May, 1991 (8)Letter dated 15th May, 1991
(9) Bye-laws of Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd.
(10) Recovery petition of loan outstanding against Mr. Javed Iqbal Bokhari.
(11) Recovery petition of Messrs Resource International.
(12) Withdrawal slips of Messrs Resource International.
(13) Statement of Account No.537 .Of Mr. Abdul Razzaq in Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation Ltd.
(14)Statement of Account No.AAM 520, dated 5-6-1991 of Messrs Resource international Cooperative Corporation Ltd.
(15) Letter dated` 5-6-1991 of Habib Industrial Cooperative Corporation Ltd.
(16) Preliminary enquiry report of Mr. Kamran Rasool, Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala.
According to the evidence of the witnesses and documents produced, the charges contained in the charge-sheet are proved against the accused officer Syed Javed Iqbal Bokhari beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses M/s. Zulfiqar Awan, Wali Muhammad, Muhammad Amin. Sardar Shoaib Ahmad, Mukhtar Ahmed, Afzal Sheikh and Kamran Rasool, etc. Corroborated each other on the point that appellant Syed Iqbal Bokhari, got granted all the above loans to himself, his relatives and his associates exercising his influence as Secretary, Cooperatives Punjab. Otherwise in normal or ordinary course such facility could not be granted to him or his relatives or his associates.
12. In his defence the appellant has taken the plea that the amount of advance was not a loan but an arrangement for raising funds for joint business ventures. As regards his own guarantee, it was only to facilitate a flow of funds to Mr. Shahzad Ali's Institution in compliance with the requirement of the Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd., so he has not misused his official authority. The appellant throughout the inquiry, held by the Inquiry, Committee, had not denied that he had not taken the above amount but had rather stressed that it was not a loan but it was an investment.
13. The record shows that the appellant's period of service as Secretary, Cooperatives was from 23- 5-1988 to 3-1-1991. During this period the above huge amount was given to him, his relatives and his associates. Also withdrawals of the clossal amount took place during this period i.e. From 8-7- 1988 to 18-12-1990. In fact, it was at the instance of the Chief Minister, Punjab (Mr. Ghulam Haider Wyne) following the receipt of a plethora of complaints from various quarters, that an inquiry was initiated in connection with the loans granted by the quarters, Societies to different persons. During this inquiry, the Enquiry Committee gave its report that the appellant had taken loans from the Cooperative Societies to the tune of Rs. 5,76,61,600 which corresponds to the figure revealed by the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary, Punjab, Authorised Officer. Thus the findings of the inquiry report stand confirmed in so far as the amount of loans/advances involved is concerned.
14. Record shows that the Revision Petition moved by the appellant to the President through Chief Secretary, Punjab, was sent back to the appellant vide letter No.S.O.(C-III)12-24/90, dated 28th November, 1991 which reads as under: "I am directed to refer to your Revision Petition cited as subject and to intimate that after examination of the case, it has been decided not to send your Review Petition to the Authority as no provision in the E&D Rules, 1973 exists which requires onward transmission of such a Revision Petition by the Authorized Officer. The said petition is returned."
15. The appellant was given a charge-sheet dated 25-3-1991 alongwith statement of allegations, to which the appellant submitted his written defence alongwith addendum. He was also given a show-cause notice dated 14-1-1992 alongwith inquiry report, by the Authorised Officer, which was received by the appellant on the same day i.e. On 14-1-1992 as is evident from signatures of the appellant on the show-cause notice with the remarks, "received complete enquiry report with annexure". The appellant also submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 27-1-1992. So it is wrong to say that he was not given a show-cause notice etc. And was inflicted major penalty of removal from service without a show-cause notice.
16. In connection with civil suits before the Civil Court, there is no bar to the initiation of proceedings against the appellant as in such matters the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.' Taking loans of large amounts from an institution, over which a Government servant has official influence comes under the ambit of Rule 10 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 2(4) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. These loans were obtained by the exercise of official influence by the appellant as has been proved by the Inquiry Committee and then found the appellant guilty of misconduct. The Inquiry Committee had come to the conclusion that his brother-in-law Shahzad Ali and his firm Resource International had borrowed alleged amount during the tenure of appellant as Secretary, Cooperatives.
17. The application dated 16-12-1987 moved by the appellant to the Chairman, Services Credit Corporation Ltd. (which is on the record) in which he had stated that the amount limit of loan be enhanced from Rs.1 lac to Rs.4,50,000 clearly shows that all amount was got as loan and not a: investment. The addendum produced by the appellant, which is on record shown that the appellant had disassociated himself from the Inquiry Committee on the ground that the suit for recovery of alleged loan is sub judice before the Civil Court, therefore, proceedings before the inquiry Committee and its decision will prejudice the matter before the Civil Court etc. Is of no avail to him as the suit before the Civil Court was for recovery of loans whereas the departmental inquiry was for "misconduct" and other charges reflected in the charge-sheet. During the arguments learned counsel for the appellant was specifically asked the question by the Full Bench whether he wants to argue about the disassociation from the Inquiry Committee by the appellant? In reply before the bar, he stated that he does not want to press the question of disassociation of the appellant from the Inquiry Committee. Anyhow this inquiry was continued under, the E&D Rules, 1973 against the appellant. Moreover in the civil suits, the Government of Punjab was not even impleaded as a party and this Committee was constituted by the Punjab Government after the permission of the Federal Government. Therefore, the stoppage of proceedings by the Inquiry Committee is not warranted under the law. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the civil suits pertain to the recovery of alleged loans obtained by the appellant for him, his relatives and, his associates but before the Inquiry Committee the question of recovery of loans was not the basis of the inquiry but it was the charge on misconduct levelled against the appellant that was enquired into as defined in Rule 2(4) of Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 and Rule 10 of Government I Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It would, therefore, follow that Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the Committee rightly continued the inquiry and finalized the same. So the disassociation of the appellant from the legally-constituted Inquiry Committee was illegal. The perusal of the whole record of the inquiry proceedings shows that the appellant was given full opportunity to be heard and produce his defence. Apart from it, there is no objection available on the record against the constitution of the Inquiry Committee and its proceedings. The only objection that the Committee should stop the proceedings against the appellant as the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court, is not legally valid, as mentioned above.
18. The perusal of the record of the Inquiry committee shows that the appellant has signed about 9 blank documents and about 95 withdrawal slips duly filled in and also guarantee Forms etc., in connection with the, above loans. Further the appellant m his Addendum to Written Defence dates 9-4-1991 has stated in para. 3(a) as under :-- "The so-called guarantee alleged to have been given by the undersigned for a part of the loan was no guarantee at all. This is manifest not only from the statement of the plaintiffs case in the pending civil suit but also from cursory glance at tip 2 ------ the alleged guarantee document. It will be noticed that no amount for the guarantee was filled in nor were any other particulars necessary for making the document a legally valid guarantee, filled-in. All of these necessary details and particulars were deliberately left out, as it was never intended to be a guarantee or surety. It was a mere formality requested from the undersigned for an interim period for regularising the aforesaid investment by the parties concerned. The undersigned unequivocally states that he has never had any direct or indirect interest in the aforesaid business venture of his brother-in-law, Mr. Shahzad Ali (Resource International), and has nothing to do with it whatsoever other than performing an act of unconcerned courtesy."
The above statement of the appellant amounts to his admission about getting loans for himself, his relatives and his associates, otherwise he would have not signed the blank documents etc.
19. In view of above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant had got granted such huge loans to himself, his relatives and his associates using his influence as being Secretary Cooperatives. Thus the findings of the legally-constituted Committee and the confirmation of next Committee constituted by the Chief Minister (Mr. Ghulam Haider Wyne), is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is hereby rejected alongwith prayer.
20. No order for costs. Parties be informed accordingly.