' This is a petition under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution to chalk the order dated 22-2-71 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from se and ordered to pay Rs, 3,291.35 on account of loss sustained by the Government. The facts, which form the background, may be stated briefly as follows:-
2. The petitioner was a Forest Guard in the Department of Forests of the Government of the Punjab.
On 17-6-64, he was posted as Forest Guard of Aluwal Beat, Block No, 1, Changa Manga. On assuming charge of the said post he submitted his charge report on 17-6-64, wherein he stated that the complete charge of the Beat had not been transferred to him at the time of taking over the charge and that the physical lots of wood were not, correctly enforced, and per entries in the relevant Stockbroker Form 5, but were less in quantity. In a note attached to the charge report be further noted that in case any further loss occurred in the Beat he would also intimate the same.
(Copy of the charge-report is Annex. 'Al. It may be mentioned that the carriage of all the existing lots of Block No, 1 to the Sale Depot had already started when the petitioner assumed charge of the Beat and this continued during his tenure of posting therein.
3. The petitioner was transfered from Block No, 1 towards the end of September 1964 and Gulab Din was posted in his place, and took charge on 27-9-64. The said Gulab Din is alleged to have reported the shortage in the firewood and on this report a case of shortage of wood was taken up by the Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Forest Division, Changa Manga, District Lahore. After protracted enquiries and differing conclusions recorded by different officers on the question whether any shortage had in fact occurred and as to who was the person who should be held responsible for it, it was ultimately held that a shortage of 36690 feet of fire-wood had occurred.
The above figure in respect of the shortage is mentioned in the preliminary enquiry, held by Mr. Aziz Din, Forest Range Officer, Changa Manga, in his report dated 15-10-70. It further appears that ultimately on the basis of the above preliminary report, the petitioner was held to be the person who was found responsible for the shortage. The petitioner was accordingly issued a charge-sheet on 22-10.70, in this connection. The charge-sheet is a very brief document and may be reproduced hereunder with advantage : {{TABLE}} "CHARGE-SHEET
1. Name ... Mr. Mohd. Sadiq.
2. Father's name Mr. Mohd. Ibrahim.
3. Rank ... Forest Guard.
4. P.E./T.E. T.E.
5. Pay ... 80/-
6. Charges (i) Corruption.
(ii) Inefficiency."
7. {{TABLE}} ' The above charge-sheet was forwarded with a covering letter reciting that a copy of the charge- sheet for (i) corruption; and (ii) inefficiency, framed against him was being forwarded alongwith the evidence in support of the charges. The petitioner has vehemently contended that the document entitled "evidence in support of the charge" was never supplied to him and at he actually relied upon this omission, as a ground for invalidating the action taken against him. Be that as it may, in order to appreciate the evidence in support of the charge, on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued, a copy of the said document was obtained from the learned counsel for the respondent and placed on the record, during the course of hearing in this Court. According to the said document, the evidence in support of the charge was as follows : "Mr. Gulab Din, Forest Guard while taking over charge of Aluwal Beat of Block No, 1 Changa Manga Plantation from Mr. Mohammad Sadiq F. G. Reported shortage of firewood from cpt. No, 5 of Block 1.
At different times the figure of this shortage had been reported different. After the reconstruction of the timber forms of Changa Manga Range, it is reported to be 36690 cft. Divisional Forest Officer, Lahore Forest Division had examined Mr. Mohammad Sadiq Forest Guard on 5-9-70 and he said that when he took over the charge, the carriage was in progress and he had requested Mr, Mohammad Nazir A. C. F. To inspect the area as the firewood was short at site. He further explained that when he took over the charge from Abdur Rehman Forest Guard the firewood was short at site and he indicated this shortage in the charge report signed by Abdur Rehman Forest Guard."
' In this connection Mr. Aziz Din F. R. Range Officer, Changa Manga was asked to hold preliminary enquiry about this shortage of firewood and submit his report fixing responsibility vide this office No, 1442/EC dated 5-9-70. He held the enquiry and submitted his report vide his letter. No, 479/C dated 15-10-70. From the perusel of the enquiry report of Range Officer, Changa Manga Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, Forest Guard seems responsible for the shortage of 36690 cft. Firewood. This amounts to corruption and inefficiency on the part of the Forest Guard."
4. Reading the charge-sheet and the document entitled evidence in support of the charge, it would appear that the petitioner was being proceeded against for "inefficiency" and "corruption" on the ground that from the findings recorded by Mr. Aziz Din, in the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner seemed to be responsible for the shortage of 36690 eft, fire-wood.
5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, denying the allegations levelled against him. The said reply was, however, not considered to be satisfactory and an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the matter. The enquiry officer found that the charges preferred against the petitioner stood established, vide his report dated 7-1-71 and as a result of the said findings the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 14-1-71, enclosing therewith the enquiry report. He was further informed that the following punishments, namely, (i) dismissal from service and (ii) recovery of loss to Government, had been proposed against him and he was called upon to show cause, why the said punishments should not be imposed upon him. According to the enquiry officer, the petitioner was responsible for the shortage of 36690 cft. Of firewood because, firstly, he did not report the shortage, if indeed there was any, at the time of taking over the charge of Aluwal from Mr. Abdur Rehman, Forest Guard. Secondly, at the time of handi over the charge to Gulab Din he showed the balance of 46865 eft. Bala firewood to be lying in eft. 5 to 7 of the Block 1, during September whereas it was pointed out by Gulab Din that there was in fact no bala of firewood in cft.
5.
6. The petitioner duly submitted his reply to the above show-cause notice but the same was not accepted and the Divisional Forest Office held that the charges against him stood had been proved. In conclusion, by his order dated 21-2-71, it was ordered that (i) Rs, 3,291.35 i,e, the alleged loss sustained to the Government, should be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue and
(ii) he be dismissed from Government service with immediate effect.
7. The petitioner challenged the above order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer by way of an appeal but this was rejected vide order of the Chief Conservator, Lahore Region, Lahore, dated 1-7-
71. Hence this writ petition.
8. Mr. Masood Ahmad Riaz, Advocate, has assailed the validity of the orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer and Chief Conservator of Forests on a large number of grounds but it is not necessary to discuss or even mention all of them because in my view the impugned orders are infirm on the following short ground.
9. It has been observed that in the charge-sheet the petitioner was charged for (1) corruption ; and
(ii) inefficiency. No allegations in support of these charges are given in the charge-sheet, but in the covering letter mention is made of a document, allegedly attached with the charge-sheet, entitled "evidence in support of the charge". However, even this document does not contain the statement of allegations which. Could be considered as elaborating the charges. All that this document recites is that the perusal of a preliminary enquiry conducted by Mr. Aziz Din, indicated that the petitioner "seems to be responsible for shortage of 36690 eft, firewood" and this short sentence constituted the entire basis for the charge that the petitioner was guilty of "corruption and inefficiency". Moreover, in the enquiry report, enclosed along with the show-cause notice, the petitioner was found guilty on the grounds that (i) he did not report the shortage, if there was any at the time of taking over the charge of Aluwal Beat (which finding is manifestly incorrect) ; and (ii) that he had indicated, while handing over the charge, that the balance firewood in compartment No, 5 was 46865 cft. In the charge report whereas there was no balance of firewood in the said compartment. (Any allegation never spelled out in the charge-sheet). Indeed the perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that it does not contain/indicate any details of the "corruption" and "inefficiency" for which the petitioner was being charged. Even if the document entitled "evidence in support of the charge" is assumed to have been supplied to the petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet, no details of the alleged "corruption" and "inefficiency" are even contained therein. The said document, reproduced in para. 3 above, shows that it has two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, the version of the petitioner is reproduced, namely, that he had reported shortage. Of firewood when he assumed charge of the Beat, etc. While in the second paragraph, it is stated that a preliminary enquiry about the shortage of firewood was conducted by Mr. Aziz Din, F.R., Changa Manga, and that from his enquiry report, the petitioner "seems responsible for shortage of 36690 cft. Firewood". Hence the petitioner was guilty of "corruption" d "inefficiency". The copy of the preliminary enquiry conducted by Mr. Aziz Din was admittedly not supplied to the petitioner. He could not, therefore, possibly be aware of the grounds on which the responsibility for shortage of 36690 cft. Firewood, even if such a shortage had indeed occurred, was being fastened upon him.
10. Rule 6 (5) (a) of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that in a case calling for a major penalty, the authority shall frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with a statement of the allegations on which it is based and of any other circumstances which the authority proposed to take into consideration when passing orders on the case. The facts noticed above reveal that provisions of this rule have not at all been observed in the present case. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that the charge-sheet simply states : "Charges : (i) Corruption.
(ii) Inefficiency."
' The statement of the allegations on which the charges were based was neither communicated to the petitioner nor enclosed with the charge-sheet. The document allegedly attached with the charge-sheet referred to a preliminary enquiry conducted by Mr. Aziz Din, F. R. But no copy of it was attached, which should have been done, in case the same was proposed to be taken into consideration when passing orders on the case. In fact, a copy of it was not supplied to the petitioner despite an application having been submitted in that behalf (See Annex. 'H'). In the result the petitioner was found guilty on the basis of allegations which were never communicated to him.
In so far as neither the statement of allegations nor the copy of the preliminary enquiry was supplied to the petitioner, the order of punishment passed against the petitioner was not tenable in law. The competent authority manifestly did not comply with the terms of rule 6 (5) (a) in the present case which omission invalidates the final order. In similar circumstances in Mohammad Nawaz v. Pakistan (1) non-compliance with the above provisions of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, was held to vitiate the final order of punishment passed against the Government servant. The relevant part of the judgment may be quoted hereunder with advantage : "Rule 6 (5) (a) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, which deals with cases in when the major penalty is called for, provides that the authority having power to impose the penalty shall frame a charge and communicate it to the accused together with a statement of the allegations on which it is based and of any other circumstances which the authority proposes to take into consideration when passing orders on the case. This is a mandatory provision of law and the use of the word "shall" which applies both to the framing of the charge-sheet communicating it to the accused and to the supply of a statement of the allegations makes it incumbent upon the Authority to comply with it. A non-compliance with it would amount to transgression of an obligatory rule which lays down the minimum standards comprising reasonable opportunity to be afforded to a Government servant against whom action is sought to be taken. The amount of prejudice, which would be caused to the person concerned, need not be taken into consideration for the non-compliance with the rule itself would constitute denial of a reasonable opportunity which per se would vitiate the action taken. In this case, whoever, the absence of t statement of allegations particularly when the charges were shorn all details in the charge-sheet did cause prejudice to the petition because he was deprived of information as to the basis on which charges had been framed against him and the other circumstances which were taken into consideration when passing orders of his dismissal."
' The position in this case is almost identical. In the result the order of dismissal dated 22-2-71 passed against the petitioner is liable to be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect on this ground alone.
11. In passing it may be observed that the petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal on the grounds of (i) corruption and (ii) inefficiency; though even on the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the Divisional Forest Officer no act of corruption can be said to have (1) PLD 1970 Lah. 811 been committed by him. The word "corruption" has not been define in the Rules but generally speaking corruption is committed if a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. In other words he obtains a wrongful gain for himself by a wilful act or omission. The above meaning of the word "corruption" given hereinbefore finds support from the meaning of the expression "may reasonably be considered to be corrupt", as given in the Rules, namely : "A government servant may reasonably be considered, corrupt if- (1) he 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 ; or
(ii) he has assumed a style of living beyond his ostensible means."
It appears, therefore, that "corruption" in the light of the Rules, conveys the sense of obtaining wrongful gain. Even on the findings recorded in impugned orders it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed "corruption".
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also addressed a detailed argument with a view to establish that the petitioner had been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself, that in fact no shortage had at all occurred and that if any person was responsible for it, it was Divisional Forest Officer and the Range Officer and not the petitioner and further that the impugned order was passed on account of mala fides. The details of the mala fides were also brought to my attention.
However, in view of my finding that the impugned order stands vitiated on account of the non- compliance with the provisions of rule 6 (5) (a) of the Rules it is not necessary to go into the said aspects of the case.
13. It may, however, be mentioned that even the first part of the impugned order whereby Rs, 3,295.35 the alleged loss sustained by Government was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue is not covered by any provision of the Rules. In the list of penalty that can be imposed on a Government servant enumerated in rule 4 the penalty relevant in the present context that can lawfully be imposed is : "Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss cause to Government by negligence or breach of order." Rule 4 (1) (c).
' Under the terms of the above rule, recovery was limited to recovery of loss from the pay of the petitioner and the respondent had n jurisdiction to effect recovery from the person of the petitioner or hi property. The direction that the alleged loss should be recover from the petitioner as "arrears of land revenue"; therefore is without jurisdiction.
14. The upshot is that the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer dated 22-2-71, dismissing the petitioner from Government service and ordering recovery of Rs, 3,298.35, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The appellate order dated 1-7-71 which is based on the above order, therefore also fails. The result of the setting aside of the order of the dismissal of the petitioner is that he shall be treated as having continued in his service notwithstanding the impugned orders with the result that the petitioner shall therefore, be restored to his office and emoluments forth-with and the respondent is ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall have also the costs of these proceedings. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.