' GULBAZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against order dated 13-11-1997, whereby Qamar-ud-Din Khan, an Officer of police service of Pakistan (BPS-20) was dismissed from service under Rule 4 (1) (b)(iv) of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, having been found guilty of misconduct and corruption arising out of his possessing of assets disproportionate to his known means of income. Qamar-ud-Din Khan filed departmental appeal on 2-12-1997.
Having not received reply result of his departmental appeal within 90 days, he preferred this appeal on 14-3-1998, which is within the period of limitation.
2. The appellant was served with charge-sheet dated 21-5-1997, along with the statement of allegations, by the Authorised Officer Mr. Tariq Saeed Haroon. The charge-sheet was as under: ' That you committed the following acts of misconduct and corruption.
(i) You failed to submit the annual declaration of assets for the years 1985, 1986, 1992 and 1993, and thus, violated rule 12(2) of Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(ii) You declared Property No, 61-R, LCCHS Lahore Cantt. Having an approximate value of Rs, 3 or 4 million in your declaration of assets for the year 1995. The said property is stated to have been partly inherited and partly paid for. Your previous declarations show the inheritance of 1/4th share in a house, at Kasur of an approximate value of Rs,1,00,000 in 1969 which was jointly inherited with your brother in 1966-67. There is no record of the inheritance of the property declared by you in 1995. Investment appears to have been made from your own undeclared source of income.
(iii) Agricultural land measuring 40 Acres valuing Rs, 2 million was shown as inherited by your wife in 1984 in Kasur. Your declaration of assets for the year 1995 shows agricultural land measuring about 34 Acres valuing Rs, 6 million in Kasur inherited by you. It appears that the land has been purchased by you from own sources which have not been declared.
(iv) Movable property worth Rs,2 million has been declared as partly inherited and partly purchased in the declaration of assets for the year 1995. No break up of inheritance and purchase has been given and no source from which the purchase has been financed is indicated. Permission for purchase also does not seem to have been obtained."
' Mr. Yousaf Kamal, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housing Urban Development and Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The appellant was asked to submit reply to the Inquiry Officer. The appellant submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 2-6- 1997, stating that he had been sending Annual Declaration Forms (hereinafter to be referred as ADF) regularly and it appears that ADF for the years 1985, 1986, 1992 and 1993 might have been misplaced; that property No, 61-R, LCCHS Lahore belonged to his wife who inherited half of the land from mother and built up the other half from her and appellant's legitimate income; that property measuring 40 Acres and 34 Acres is the same piece of land in Mauza Mustafa Abad, District Kasur; that the appellant did not inherit any agricultural land in 1995 and he meant that his wife had inherited land.
2. The appellant was served with another charge-sheet on 12-6-1997, alongwith the statement of allegations. The charge being that he was running "Index Departmental Store" which was situated opposite to his house. The appellant denied this charge vide reply dated 23-6-1997 and stated that he wished to be heard in person.
3. The appellant was served with third charge-sheet dated 22-7-1997, alongwith statement of allegations. The charge-sheet reads as under:- "That you committed the following acts of misconduct and corruption:
(i) You purchased 26 acres of agricultural land at Patwar Circle KHARA, Kasur, in the name of your wife at a cost of Rs,33 lacs. You never declared this acquisition in your declaration of assets.
(ii) You owned a commercial plaza in Commercial Area, R-block, Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Housing Society, Lahore Cantt. Which was sold by you for Rs,65 lacs to a person named Tauheed who belongs to Sialkot and is engaged in import export business. The plaza was never declared in your declaration of assets."
' The appellant submitted reply to this charge-sheet on 16-8-1997. He disclosed that his wife entered into partnership with Major (R)'Ali Hamid Khan in the Company/firm known as Crest Enterprises, Karachi, and invested Rs, I million which she received from her mother who had sold her Property No,17 Aibak Block, New Garden Town, Lahore in 1981 and the appellant had conveyed it to the Chief Secretary, Sindh; that the partnership was dissolved in 1986; that the appellant's wife started Real Estate and Property Business at 35, 2/C-2, College Road, Township, Lahore in the name of Grand Estates and the appellant had been assisting her; that the said business suffered set- back when he (the appellant) had gone to Quetta; that the appellant's wife purchased 7 Marlas commercial plot in Phase-2 of LCCHS in 1992 and raised a building on it; that the appellant's wife purchased land in Khara; and that the property had been acquired through legitimate resources and income.
4. The inquiry proceedings started on 30-6-1997. The appeallant and departmental representative were present. Inquiry was (sic) did not attend inquiry proceedings on the siad date and adjourned to 7-7-1997. The appellant made representation on 4-7-1997. The appellant made representation on 4-7-1997 for the change of Inquiry Officer on the ground that Mr. Parvez Masood, Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab was hostile towards him and an officer who was not subordinate to the Chief Secretary may be appointed as Inquiry Officer, but this request was turned down on 12-7- 1997. The appellant was summoned for 29-7-1997 and 4-8-1997, but he did not attend. Second representation for change of Inquiry Officer was also rejected on 12-8-1997. The appellant was summoned for 18-7-1997, but on his request inquiry was adjourned to 26-8-1997. The appellant did not appear on the said date and he was summoned six times but he did not attend the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer was justified in taking up the proceedings ex parte. Statements of witnesses were recorded and documentary evidence brought on the file. The appellant was found guilty of all the charges. The Inquiry Officer submitted report to the Authorised Officer.
5. The Authorised Officer served the appellant with a show-cause notice dated 24-9-1997, stating that inquiry report revealed that charges stood proved against him. The appellant was also supplied copy of inquiry report. He was required to show cause as to why one of the major penalties be not imposed upon him. He was further asked if he desired to be heard in person. The appellant submitted detailed reply on 30-9-1997 alleging that he never expected anything fair out of the inquiry report prepared by an officer subordinate to Mr. Parvez Masood, Chief Secretary, Punjab, and that he had firm belief that he had been involved wrongfully at the instigation of Mr. Pervez Masood. He further stated that his case may be considered in the light of his letters dated 2- 6-1997, 23-6-1997, 16-8-1997 and 29-8-1997. The appellant did not ask for personal hearing.
6. The competent Authority passed order of dismissal from service against the appellant, on 13-11- 1997.
7. The appeal was admitted on 15-4-1998 for regular hearing. It was fixed for arguments, on 26-11- 1998. Arguments were heard on the said date and judgment reserved. The department was directed to hand over the inquiry files which was done.
8. The appellant joined police service of Pakistan on 15-12-1967 and posted as Assistant Superintendent of Police. He remained suspended from August, 1980 to September, 1987. He remained on active service from September, 1987. He was posted as OSD from 1991 till the order of dismissal.
9. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the departmental representative. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was an honest officer. Besides, there was no occasion to indulge in corruption as out of thirty years of service, he remained suspended for more than 6-1/2 years and was posted as OSD for nearly 7 years; that the appellant had always remained a political victim; that series of charges were framed which was not contemplated under the rules; that impartial inquiry was not held; that the appellant had alleged malice but it was not adjudicated; that for valid reasons the appellant had made several requests for the change of Inquiry Officer as Mr. Parvez Masood, Chief Secretary, Punjab was hostile towards him and his requests were turned down without assigning any reason; that there was no legal evidence against the appellant in support of the charges; and that written explanation submitted by the appellant was enough to exonerate him from the charges.
10. The contentions of the parties have been considered. Before attending to the merits of the case, it is essential to explain the legal aspects of the case. Misconduct has been defined in Rule 2 (4) of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 as conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline or contrary to Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 or unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. Grounds of penalty have been mentioned in Rule 3. It is provided in Rule 3 (b) that where a Government servant, in the opinion of the authority is guilty of misconduct; or is corrupt, or may reasonably be considered corrupt because he is or any of his dependents or any other person through him or on his behalf is, in possession (for which he cannot reasonably account) of pecuniary resources or of property disproportionate to his known sources of income, the authority may impose on him one or more penalties. Government servant has been defined in Rule 3 (1)(b) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and it means a person to whom the Rules apply and member of a Government servant's family includes his wife, child or step-child, whether family includes his wife, child or step-child, whether residing with the Government servant or not. It is laid down in rule 12 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 that every Government servant shall, at the time of entering into Government service, make a declaration to the Government, through the usual channel, of all immovable and movable properties including shares, certificates, securities, insurance policies and jewellary having a total value of Rs,50,000 or more belonging to or held by him or a member of his family. It is provided in Rule 11 that a Government servant who intends to transact any purchase, sale or disposal by other means of movable or immovable property exceeding in value of Rs,25,000 with any person shall apply for permission to the head of Department or Secretary to the Government, as the case may be. Any such application shall state fully the circumstances, the price offered or demanded in the case of disposal otherwise than by sale, the method of disposal. Rule 11-A provides that no Government servant shall construct a building, whether intended to be used for residential or commercial purposes, except with the previous sanction of the Government obtained upon an application made in this behalf disclosing the source from which the cost of such construction shall be met.
' It would be of advantage to reproduce section 7 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958:-- ' Section 7: Special rules of evidence.--When any person is charged before a Special Judge with an offence triable under this Act, the fact that such person or any other person through him or on his behalf, is in possession, for which he cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources, or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, or that such person has, on or about the time of offence with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, may be proved and may be taken into consideration by the special Judge as a relevant fact in deciding whether he is guilty of the particular offence with which he is charged.
' Guidelines have been provided in the rules and sections, referred to above, Government has also issued various instructions from time to time with regard to filing of ADFs, which are part of the record of this case.
11. Now coming to the merits of the case, the appellant filed ADF upon entering into Government service as required under Rule 12 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He disclosed in Form I, Part A pertaining to urban property, that he alongwith his brother inherited one house in Mori Gate, Kasur, valued at Rs, One lac, which was in his possession and another house in Kasur jointly owned by his brother and cousin but he sold it for Rs,14,000. As regards the agricultural land, he mentioned in Form I, Part B that he had 12/13 Acres of land jointly with his brother, but he sold the land for Rs,28,000. In Form I, part C, he showed his bank balance as Rs,1,400. The total value of properties and assets was mentioned as Rs,1,00,000 jointly held by his brother. It appears from Form for the year ending 31st December, 1984 that the appellant was married in 1970 and at the time of his marriage, his wife Mst. Munazzah received ornaments worth Rs .2-1/2 lacs from her parents. Besides, she inherited 40 Acres of agricultural land worth Rs,2 Million at the time of death of her grand-father in 1983. But the land was under the possession of appellant's brother. The appellant filed ADF for the year 1995. He gave the following details of property:
(1) 61-R, LCCHS Lahore Cantt--valued Rs, 3 or 4 million and partly inherited and partly paid.
(ii) 34 Acres of agricultural land in village Mustafabad, District Kasur, valued Rs, 6 million-inherites.
(iii) Movable property-cum-jewellery, cash, etc. Two million--some inherited and some purchased. = Total 12 million.
' We have on record the statement of Mian Muhammad Ashraf Tahir, Assistant Director, Anti- Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, wherein he stated that the wife of the appellant purchased. Plot No, 165 in Block K, Phase I from General Ahmed Kamal Khan in May, 1989; purchased Plot No, 48 Commercial Block Z, Phase III, LCCHS in June, 1989 from Jehangir Aziz. She purchased Plot No, 60-R Block, Phase II from Salma Sultana in March, 1992. She also purchased Plot No, 4 Commercial Block, CCA Phase II, from Col. Muhammad Saeed in April, 1992. She purchased agricultural land measuring 252 Kanals and three Marlas in village Khara, District Kasur from Mustafa Khan for Rs,33,00,000 and obtained land measuring 48 Kanals and 1 Marla through exchange with land in Mauza Charar, Tehsil Lahore Cantt. The statement of Mian Muhammad Ashraf Tahir was supported by documentary evidence.
11. We have examined Income tax/wealth tax case of the wife of appellant for the period ending 30- 6-1988 to 30-6-1993. Mst. Munazzah declared Nil income in the returns, for the said period, which were later revised, and showed income as under:-- {{TABLE TEXT}} {{TABLE}} 1988-1989 1989-1990 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 Rs,5,000 Rs,7,000 Rs,8,000 Rs,10,000 Rs,1,200 . Rs,15,000 ' Mst. Munazzah was running a boutique during the said period. Following properties were mentioned in the income tax case: 1988-89: House No, 35 Block 2, Rs,16,00,000 Sector C-11 College Road, Township, Lahore (Acquired in 1986).
Cash and Prize Bonds. 45,000 Cash gift from mother (1-7-1988 to 30-6-1989) 20,00,000 Cost of Plot 61-R-LCCHS 16,50,000 1990-91: Business Capital. .. 40,000 Sale of House in Township. .. 35,00,000 1991-92: Business Capital. 45,000 Cash and Prize Bonds. 43,39,000 1992-93: House 61-R. 39,00,000 Plot 60-gifted by mother. 14,00,000 Business capital. 48,000 House 61-R constructed during .. 22,50,000 this year. Construction declared. Commercial Plot No,4 14,00,000 1993-94: 61-R, LCCHS. 39,00,000 60-R 14,00,000 Commercial Plot 4. .. 23,00,000 Prize Bonds. -2,00,000 Cash. 86,000 1999-95: Net income. .. 33,000 {{TABLE}} ' Index Super Store started during 1994-95 on marginal/domestic scale.
13. We have thoroughly checked the record. Charge-sheet dated 21-5-1997.
Charge No, (i): ' We do not find ADFs for the years 1985, 1986, 1992 and 1993. The explanation of the appellant that those might have been misplaced cannot be accepted. The appellant failed to submit ADFs as required under Rule 12 (2) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and he was rightly held guilty of the said charge..
Charge No, (ii): ' The appellant explained that Property No, 6-R, LCCHS, Lahore belonged to his wife and that half of the land of the said property was inherited by his wife from mother and the other half was built up through legitimate resources and savings. This explanation is not true. Wife of the appellant admitted in her income declaration that she purchased Plot No, 61-R, LCCHS, on 18-5-1989 for Rs,16- 1/2 LCCHS. The appellant did not show this property in the ADF ending 31st December, 1989. He failed to account for this property. He was then in active service.
Charge No, (iii): ' The appellant mentioned in ADF for the year 1984 that his wife was owner of 40 acres of land which she inherited on the death of her grand-father. He did not mention the name of Mauza where the said property was located. He simply mentioned that it was situated in District Kasur. In the ADF for the year ending 1985, he mentioned 34 acres of agricultural land worth Rs, 6 million. The appellant could easily produce Fard Jamabandi to prove that the property in the abovementioned ADF was the same. The explanation of the appellant with regard to variation in size that some land had been gifted to Cancer Hospital and some to Muhammad Siddiq and Razia Sultana, was not acceptable as it was bald statement of the appellant without any material on the record or without producing any documentary evidence which could easily be done.
Charge No, (iv): ' The appellant gave the value of the ornaments of his wife received by her at the time of the marriage as Rs,2-1/2 lacs but in the ADF for the year 1995, he mentioned the value of ornaments, car, refrigerator as Rs,20 lacs. The price of gold could not rise eight times in a period of ten years.
The appellant failed to explain it reasonably.
CHARGE SHEET dated 12-6-1997: ' Although the appellant had denied this charge, but this amply stood proved through evidence on record. Wife of the appellant purchased commercial Plot No,4, Commercial Block, CCA Phase H, measuring 7 Marlas, on 28-3-1992, from Col Muhammad Saeed. This stands established from transfer documents brought on the file of the case. Its declared value was shown as Rs, 14 lacs and construction cost was as Rs, 9 lacs, making the total value as Rs, 23 lacs. Wife of the appellant had shown net income of Rs,33,000 from business conducted in the name and style of Super Departmental Store which was started during assessment year 1994-95. No further evidence was required to prove this charge.
CHARGE SHEET dated 22-7-1997: Charge No, (i): ' This charge stands proved from Revenue Record and also certified by EAC Revenue Tehsildar and Patwari. Wife of the appellant, Mst. Munazzah, purchased land measuring 252 Kanals and 3 Marlas for Rs, 33 lacs from Mustafa Khan, on 5-9-1995 and exchanged land with Hassan Ali Khan measuring 48 Kanals and 1 Marla with her land in Mauza Charar, on 25-4-1996. This property was not declared by the appellant in his ADF.
Charge No, (ii): ' No material was brought on record to substantiate this charge.
14. We do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no occasion to indulge in corruption as he remained suspended for nearly seven years from August, 1982 to September, 1987 and then remained. As OSD from 1991 till the date of dismissal. The appellant remained in active service as D.I.-G. From 1987 to 1991. He was in Narcotics Control in 1987.. Record shows that most of the properties had been acquired during this period or shortly thereafter. Appellant's wife had a House No, 35 Block 2, Sector-II in 1988-89 valued Rs,16,00,000. This property was not mentioned in any ADF. She purchased Plot 61-R, on 18-5-1989 for Rs,16,50,000. She had cash of Rs,13,35,000 in year 1989-90 which rose upto Rs,31,75,000 in year 1990-
91. She raised construction over Plot No, 61-R by spending Rs,22,50,000. She purchased two commercial Plots Nos, 165, Commercial Phase I and No, 48 Commercial plot in Z Block, Phase III in May and June respectively. She purchased another commercial Plot No, CCA, Phase II in April, 1992.
There is documentary evidence on record that she purchased landed property for Rs,33,00,000 in village Khara in the year 1995. The appellant did not mention the above properties in any of his ADFs. He could not ,explain those properties which may be well over Rs,3 crores.
15. There is no legal bar to the framing of further charges after the framing of the first charge. It also depends on the nature of offence. If after framing of the first charge, further evidence is collected which necessitates framing of second or third charge, such charges could legally be framed.
16. The appellant was present during the hearing of appeal. He was asked to explain as to why Mr. Parvez Masood, the then Chief Secretary was hostile towards him. He was unable to give satisfactory reply. In his written statement, he had alleged that Mr. Parvez Masood was annoyed with him for the reason as to why he had managed his transfer to Province of Punjab without his prior consent or intimation and that during the courtesy call there was exchange of hot words between him and the Chief Secretary. It is a concocted story and we do not find any truth in it. The appellant wanted to prolong inquiry and he invented this excuse.
17. The department did its best to unearth the properties and wealth accumulated by the appellant and his wife. It was for the appellant to explain as to how his wife acquired those properties, the cash and prize bonds. The onus shifted on him. Since the appellant could not explain the properties and wealth acquired, he did not join the inquiry. The value of the properties should not be less than 3 crores. This estimate is at the low side. The appellant failed to account for it. He did not mention those properties in his ADFs. We were informed during the arguments that the appellant was once removed from service in. 1976 on the charge of corruption. He was challaned in a murder case and remained suspended from 1980 to 1986. There is no material to come to conclusion that the appellant was victimised due to political reasons. The version of the appellant that his wife had earned much income from Real Estate was not correct. The wife of the appellant did not mention anywhere the income earned by her was through her business and she was a partner of Ali Hamid Khan, in business known as Cresent Enterprises. She conveyed information in her income-tax returns. She was in boutique business. She later gave up this boutique business and started Index Super Store. We do not believe the appellant that the income had been earned by his wife from the Real Estate business. No oral or documentary evidence has been produced in this regard.
18. After having considered all the material on record and the contentions of the parties, we hold that the appellant had been rightly dismissed from service by the competent Authority. Finding no force in this appeal, we dismiss it leaving the parties to bear their own cost.