' This is an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974 against orders, dated 17- 8-1994 and 11-5-1999.
2. Facts leading to this appeal are that appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in the year 1985. On receipt of a complaint dated 13-3-1994 (Annex. A) not only criminal proceedings were initiated against Sajjad Shah but Departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Vide letter dated 23-6-1994 (Annex. C) the appellant was also directed to reply. At that time the appellant was behind the bars. According to the appellant the above show-cause notice dated 23-6-1994 did not reach him, however, another show-cause notice dated 26-6-1994 (Annex. D) was issued by the Authorised Officer which was received by the appellant in the District Jail Multan. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant was found involved in forgery for making bogus conveyance Deed and allegedly received illegal gratification. Cases under F.I.Rs, Nos.91 of 1994, 105 of 1994, 111 of 1994, 112 of 1994, 116 of 1994 and 119 of .1994 were registered at Police Station City Mian Channu Saddar. He was arrested on the statement of allottees of 111/15 (Chak) Tehsil Mian Channu by the Police on verification and was sent to judicial lock-up. He was placed under suspension on 28-3-1994. On 17- 5-1994, A.D.C.(G) was appointed as Authorized Officer to proceed against him. He issued a show- cause notice under section 6(3) of E&D Rules. On receipt of show-cause notice dated 26-6-1994, referred to above (Annx. D), the appellant requested to allow him come out of Jail and till then matter be kept pending till the decision of the criminal case vide letter dated 3-8-1994. However, he was dismissed by Respondent No, 1 vide order, dated 17-8-1994 (Annex. F) which was received by the appellant on 17-11-1994. The appellant preferred a Departmental Appeal to Respondent No, 2 on 15-12-1994 (Annex. C). The Respondent No,2 remanded the case to Respondent No,1 for de novo enquiry without setting aside the order of dismissal. During the pendency of the Departmental Appeal a new show-cause notice was issued on 5-8-1997 (Annex. J) alongwith statement of allegations (Annex. K) by A.D.C. (G) Khanewal embodying the following allegations:- "While you posted as General Clerk, in the office of Assistant -Commissioner, Mianchannu, you were found in forgery for making bogus Conveyance Deeds and receiving illegal gratification.
' By reasons on the above, you appear to be:-- ' guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rules 2(1)d)_ and 3(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 as detailed in the enclosed statement of allegation."
' The appellant submitted the reply of the show-cause notice in shape of Annex. M denying the charges. The Authorised Officer sent the report to Respondent No,1 with recommendation to dismiss the Departmental appeal and on the basis of the said recommendations, the Departmental Appeal of the appellant was rejected on 11-5-1999 (Annex. N) which was communicated to the appellant on 14-6-1999. The Appellant challenged the vices of the orders dated 17-8-1994 and 11-5-1999 on the grounds that the above orders were issued in flagrant violation of basic principles provided by E & D Rules and laid down by the superior Courts that the appellant was punished on the basis of surmises and conjectures without any material or evidence that the impugned order was passed mechanically -and without application of mind that the impugned order of dismissal was passed on extraneous influence and political pressure and the Authority failed to, exercise its own jurisdiction properly and independently. It was added that all the allegations levelled in the impugned order are fake and frivolous and the appellant had not committed any misconduct nor he remained involved in forgery..
3. The Department contested the appeal in the terms that 6 criminal cases were registered against the so-called beneficiaries of the aforementioned deeds. Nominated accused of all the F.I.Rs, stated the association of the appellant in the offence of forgery. This type of forgery in making fictitious documents bearing office stamps thereupon became possible only in collusion and collaboration of the present appellant. The involvement of the appellant was fully proved during the Departmental proceedings, hence he was dismissed. The dismissal of the appellant from service was based on concrete and sound reasons. While preparing fictitious Conveyance Deeds of about 300 Kanals of State Land, the appellant tried to cause loss to the Government. He is not a fit person to be a public servant. A period of about 5 years since his dismissal from service elapsed and his reinstatement, if ordered, would not be beneficial both for public and the Department.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Special Judge Anti-Corruption Multan at Khanewal vide order, dated 17-9-1996 and 7-7-1997, accepted applications under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And acquitted the accused. In other words the very basis on which the Departmental proceedings were initiated was dismantled. The Anti-Corruption Establishment also thoroughly probed into the matter and dropped the enquiry vide letters dated 25-4-1998. It further affixed the seal on innocence of the appellant. The Departmental enquiry was bereft of any substance; no incriminating evidence was collected during the enquiry proceedings and the appellant was taken to task on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon PLD 1989 SC 335, 1997 PLC (C.S.) 817 Supreme Court of Pakistan and 1996 PLC
(CS) 414 (PST). Conversely it was argued by the learned Deputy District Attorney and the Departmental Representative that without active participation of the appellant, forgery was not possible. Sufficient material was collected in de novo enquiry after remanding the case by the Commissioner and the same provided full justification to take the appellant to task.
5. Orders passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption Multan in the criminal cases referred to above indicate that local Police was not competent to investigate the case and Challan Muhammad Ilyas as public Servant. All the proceedings against him were declared without authority. For the same reasons, the proceedings against the private persons by the Special Court were also held without lawful authority. Applications under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Were accepted and the accused were acquitted. The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Establishment clarified that it was for the Anti-Corruption Establishment to initiate proceedings against the accused if so desired. It is, therefore, crystal clear from the orders of Special Judge Anti-Corruption that the appellant was acquitted of the charges of forgery. The Anti-Corruption Establishment probed into the matter and vide letter dazed 25-4-1998 dropped the enquiry/investigation. I am aware that this acquittal did not prove any ground for exempting the appellant from Departmental proceedings; however it is evident that the appellant was not only declared innocent by the Anti-Corruption Establishment but also acquitted under section 249-A Cr.P.C. By the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is a settled law that all acquittals are honourable. The investigation by the Anti-Corruption Establishment also culminated in favour of the appellant. The appellant during enquiry proceedings brought this fact to light before the Enquiry Officer and he produced the photo copies of the orders of the Anti- Corruption Establishment but the same were not given any importance. The competent authorities like Special Judge, Anti Corruption and Anti-Corruption Establishment exonerated the appellant therefore, the very basis on which the superstructure was evolved crumbled down.
6. Now I come to the enquiry proceedings. It is a settled law that the Department/prosecution is to prove the allegations embodied in the charge-sheet. Vide enquiry report at Annex. L, only 2 prosecution witnesses, namely Ch. Muhammad Aslant, Assn. Appeal Clerk, Office of the D.C.
Khanewal and Assistant Commissioner, Mian Channu were examined. Muhammad Aslam did not utter a single word to support the prosecution case whereas Assistant Commissioner, the other prosecution witness, spoke with a waivering mind. He made it clear that he was not conversant with the signatures of ex-Assistant Commissioner. This material did not suffice to draw a definite conclusion about the guilt of the appellant. The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer and deposed that he remained in A.C. Office Mian Channu with effect from 1993 to 1994 and performed the duties as General Clerk. Conveyance Deeds were prepared in Colony Branch and he worked as Ahata Clerk in Colony Branch in the year 1989-90. The forged Conveyance Deeds were prepared in the year 1994 in the Colony Branch. The Enquiry Officer in spite of hollowness in the statement of P.
Ws. Was influenced by the fact that during investigation Muhammad Yousaf, Alam Sher and Abdus Slam stated that the appellant prepared the bogus Conveyance Deeds and received illegal gratification. These private persons were not examined by the Enquiry Officer himself neither the appellant was provided an opportunity to cross-examine them. If they were examined by the Anti- Corruption Establishment during investigation, the Anti-Corruption Establishment dropped the proceedings meaning thereby that Anti-Corruption Establishment was not ready to attach any sanctity to the statements of the private persons referred to above. There was no justification to make their statements as basis to put the rope around the neck of the appellant, particularly when he was not in Colony Branch at the relevant time. The other allegation embodied in the charge- sheet is also vague. It was nowhere specifically alleged the time, the place or the persons when illegal gratification was posed. I am of the considered opinion that the Enquiry Officer was influenced by the gravity of the offence; he did not bother to delve into the matter and opted to travel on the periphery. The appellate authority i,e, Commissioner attended the matter in perfunctory manner and treated the Enquiry Report as a gospel truth. There was no direct evidence to show that the appellant had accepted any illegal gratification. In absence of any incriminating evidence, there was no justification to take the appellant to task either by the competent authority or by the appellate authority particularly when the Anti-Corruption Establishment dropped the proceedings/investigations. The prosecution evidences did not suffice to bring home guilt to the appellant. The enquiry was conducted in a casual manner it was not taken as a serious pursuit.
7. Upshot of the above exercise is that it was a case of no evidence and the appellant was subjected to harsh treatment on the basis of surmises and conjecture. Appeal is accepted. The impugned orders dated 17-8-1994 and 11-5-1999 are set aside. The appellant is reinstated into service. The intervening period will be treated as on leave of the kind due. The appellant will be reinstated into service from the date of his dismissal. Record be consigned to Record Room.