ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---Appellant Muhammad Boota, a matriculate joined the Watch and Ward Chowkidar on 21-10-1980. Later on, that department was merged into Pakistan Railways Police and his service was placed at the disposal of the Railway Police with re-designation as Constable.
2. The appellant allegedly, on the instigation of one Salamat Baig, with whom, he had family dispute was charge-sheeted on 23-4-1996. To which the appellant replied on 24-5-1996 denying the allegation. One Mr. Muhammad Yousaf was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On his transfer another person with the name of Mr. Rashid Khan was appointed as Inquiry Officer Mr. Salamat Baig appeared before the Inquiry Officer, as a witness. However, according to the appellant he admitted that he could not establish the guilt of the appellant.
3. However, Mr. Rashid was also transferred during the inquiry proceedings. Hence an officer namely Mr. Farooq was appointed as Inquiry Officer. According to the appellant the dealing Clerk of the officer of the workshop namely Muhammad Saeed, was already examined by Mr. Rashid but at the back of the appellant, and the appellant was also not provided to opportunity to cross- examine the said Clerk.
4. Ultimately, the appellant was served show-cause notice vide order dated 22-6-1996.
Subsequently he was dismissed from service vide order dated 29-6-1996 on the ground that he had produced bogus educational certificate at the the of his appointment. The appellant assailed the impugned order of his dismissal from the service by way of departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the competent Authority. Hence this appeal with the prayer that, his dismissal order be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in the service with the Constitutional benefits.
5. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the entire action of the respondents revolved round a false allegation, which could not be established due to faulty inquiry, as neither the concerned officials of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education were called for verification of alleged forged documents, nor the department Record Clerk Mr. Muhammad Saeed was examined in the presence of the appellant, which vitiated the whole inquiry. Hence, the entire action was liable to be recalled.
6. It was further argued that the appellant had specifically denied the allegation, but so-called admission was attributed to the appellant which was otherwise a fake and bogus and just to ruin the appellant's career, and that all the exercise which was otherwise against all cannons of justice and fair play.
7. Learned counsel brought to the notice of the Bar that the dismissal of the appellant itself was passed by the incompetent authority who had no concern at all with the appellant's case, hence on that short ground the impugned order was liable to be quashed.
8. Summing his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that the allegation against the appellant was false and not proved no departmental record was examined and no prosecution witness was examined. The alleged School Certificate Authority was also not examined, his matric certificate was not got verified. In view of circumstances and that the appellant had put up a total service of 17 years, he prayed, that his case be considered sympathetically and on the humanitarian grounds.
9. The comments have also been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the appeal has been resisted vehemently.
10. At the very start, the objection of limitation has been raised. It has been pointed out that the appellant submitted his first appeal on 9-7-1996, which was dismissed on 24-7-1996. Therefore, it has been observed that he was bound to file an appeal before the Tribunal up to 22-8-1996, i.e. Within 30 days after the decision of his appeal, but he failed to do so and filed the premature appeal before the Tribunal on 14-11-1996. i.e. With a delay of to months and 22 days, hence warrants to be dismissed being the-barred.
11. On facts, it has been stated that one Mr. Salamat Baig, submitted an application to respondent No. l stating therein that appellant had produced a middle class educational certificate at the the of his appointment, as Chowkidar Watch and Ward, which was bogus. Therefore, a fact-finding inquiry was constituted to look into the allegation. During the process of inquiry, the appellant admitted that the said certificate was bogus. Thereafter, a regular departmental inquiry was entrusted to Inspector, Pakistan Railway Police, C & W Shops, Moghalpura. During the process of inquiry it was found that the appellant was matriculate with date of birth as 3-4-1951. At that the his age was about 28 years and 9 months and 18 days, as such he was 'to be disqualified to get any Government service being overage. In order to come out of this disqualification he selected to provide a bogus certificate of middle class, showing his date of birth as 1-I-1956. In his application he had clearly stated his educational qualification, as middle and date of birth as 1-1-1956 and was duly signed by himself.
12. The middle school certificate was got verified from the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Chak No.4-SB, Sargodha. The report of the Principal revealed that the such a certificate was never issued by the Institution, as such it proved to be bogus. Accordingly the show-cause notice was served upon the appellant, to which he made a reply. However, his reply was not found convincing. He was also afforded the opportunity of personal hearing, but he failed to convince the authority. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, relevant rules and standing instructions of the Chief Executive, the appellant was dismissed from service on 29-6-1996 by Deputy Superintendent, Pakistan Railway Workshop Division, Moghalpura. His appeal to was dismissed on 24-7-1996.
13. Replying to the various objections, raised by the appellant vide his memo of the appeal, it has been stated that Mr. Saeed the office clerk merely kept the record of the appellant in his custody as an official duty, otherwise, he had no other concern with the case.
14. As regards the verification of his matriculation certificate it has been contended that in fact it was the middle school certificate, which was in dispute not the matriculation certificate, hence there was no need to verify the Secondary School Certificate. He never informed the office that he was matriculate. Even he ignored the monetary benefit of five advance increments, which were allowed to all the matriculates from 1-7-1983 onwards.
15. It has also been rebutted, if he was punished by an incompetent officer. It has been clarified that the officer who punished the appellant was fully competent under the Punjab Police Rules.
16. With these submissions it has been prayed to dismiss the appeal.
17. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record before us. We find that it was the middle school of certificate, which was in dispute, on the strength of which the appellant got the appointment of Watch and Ward Chowkidar. This certificate later on was got verified from School from where it was supposed to have been issued. However, on verification from the Principal, it proved to be bogus, as it was never issued by that Institution. The appellant confessed this in his own written statement, that he made during the process of fact-finding inquiry. In fact the appellant was matriculate which information he concealed from administration. Had he produced that certificate before the authorities at the the of his appointment he would not have been taken in the service at that the as he had become overage based upon the date of birth entered in his certificate as 3-4-1957. To cover up his this impediment he procured a bogus certificate with birth date as 1-1-1956, which made him eligible for appointment and was, therefore, appointed. This no doubt was crime and could not be excused so easily. The appellant knew his weakness, that he had submitted bogus certificate, i.e. Why he being a matriculate did not demand five advance increments which were allowed to matriculate Constable. He was asked during the course of hearing as to why he did not apply for five increments. His reply was not convincing and from it was construed dial he knew that he had already committed a forgery.
18. The regular inquiry, therefore, was ordered and conducted. The Inquiry Officer held him guilty of the charges levelled against him. Final show-cause notice was issued to him. The reply submitted by the appellant was found unsatisfactory, in response to the final show-cause notice. The appellant was also afforded an opportunity to appear before the competent Authority. However, he could not prove himself innocent and failed to satisfy the competent authority. The offence of cheating administration committed by him was highly objectionable and warranted major punishment: Accordingly he was imposed and rightly major penalty of dismissal from service under the prescribed rules:
19. As regards the punishment of the appellant by an incompetent authority the learned counsel for the respondents clarified that the punishing officer, was given additional charge of the Circle, the appellant was working, as such he was competent to impose such a penalty. We are fully convinced that right officer has imposed penalty on the appellant.
20. On law point, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the impugned order was passed on 29-6-1996, to which the appellant submitted his departmental appeal on 9-7-1996.
Which was rejected on 24-7-1996. However, the appellant made a review petition to respondent No. 1 on 7-8-1996, which to was rejected by respondent No.2 on 5-10-1996, which was received by him on 8-10-1996. He filed present service appeal before the Tribunal on 4-11-1996. In fact he should have approached the Tribunal within the period of 30 days of the date of rejection of his departmental appeal i.e. 24-7-1996. As such there was delay of 2 months, 22 days. The review petition in any case does not extend the period of limitation. As such the appeal also was barred by the.
21. The appeal fails on both the grounds, the merit as well as on the limitation. Hence is dismissed on both the grounds with no order as to cost.
22. Parties to be informed.