1. ' Appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against order dated 10-7-1998 vides which the appellant was awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that on 29-8-1996, Maj. Azmat Gulraiz son of Mirza Mahboob Alam resident of 33-Defence Lahore Cantt. Presented certified copy of sale-deed No, 11513 dated 16-9-1990, before Mr. Tariq Mahmood, Sub Registrar, Lahore for verification as to its correctness or otherwise. The said copy was issued by Muhammad Sharif Mewati, I.C. On 22-8- 1996, who was working as recordkeeper in the Registration Branch, Lahore Cantt. During the course of comparison with the record, it transpired that the said document was not only undervalued but signatures of Muhammad Khalid Zauq then Sub-Registrar dated 16-9-1990 were also forged, Proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1975 were taken and the appellant was charge sheeted as under;-- "that while he was posted as Recordkeeper in Registration Branch, Cantt, he made a bogus document No,11513, Vol No,3539 dated A 16-9-1990 in the record by removing original document."
3. ' The Inquiry Officer in his findings dated 22-4-1998 held that the charge Was proved. On the recommendations of the Authorised Officer, Deputy Commissioner/Authority vide impugned order dated 10-7-1998 awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service. His departmental appeal/representation was rejected on 22-9-1999. Hence this appeal.
4. ' I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Departmental Representative and District Attorney and have perused the record and written objections submitted by the respondents.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the first inquiry conducted by Muhammad Rustom Bhatti, Magistrate First Class Lahore, charges against the appellant were not proved. The Authorised Officer in his first recommendations dated 12-4-1997 recommended for the exoneration of the appellant. The case F.I.R. No,443 of 1996 under sections 420, 468, 471 409. P.P.C. And section 82 of Registration Act was got registered at Police Station Lahore Cantt. Against the appellant but during investigation the appellant was found innocent and the Police recommended for the discharge to the appellant. De novo inquiry was ordered and Muhammad Khalid Zauq who was complainant in this case was appointed Inquiry Officer. Muhamamd Khalid Zauq proceeded ex parte and without recording any evidence gave his findings that the charge was proved. The appellant was not heard in person by the Authorized Officer/Authority and 2nd show-cause notice alongwith findings of the inquiry was not served upon the appellant.
6. ' The perusal of the impugned order dated 10-7-1998 and objections to the Memorandum of Appeal submitted by the respondents reveals that the appellant was given 44 opportunities including written notice for participating in the de novo inquiry. He was also summoned for personal hearing by the Authority but he did not turn up.
7. Reasonable opportunity 'was afforded to the appellant to participate in the de novo inquiry, but he failed to participate for the reasons best known to him. He should thus, condemn himself for not participating in the proceedings.
8. ' As for as the de novo inquiry is concerned the findings dated 22-4-1998 of Muhammad Khalid Zauq, Inquiry Officer reveals that neither any witness was examined nor any document was placed on record before giving the findings. The appellant was held guilty of forging the document No,11513 Volume No,3539 dated 16-9-1990 and placing in the record by removing original documents. There was no evidence that the document was forged by the appellant. The handwriting of the appellant and the forged document was not got verified from any expert to prove that the forged document was written by the appellant.
9. ' The perusal of findings of the first inquiry conducted by Muhammad Rustam Bhatti, Magistrate First Class, Lahore reveals that the material witnesses formally Talib Hussain, Stamp Vendor and Haji Akbar Ali, Tanvir Ahmad Waseqa Navees deposed nothing against the appellant. According to the affidavit of Major Azmat Gulraiz husband of Mst. Zohora Gulzar (Vendee) Major Azmat Gulraiz handed over all the documents and cost of stamp paper to Mr. Zahur Ahmad, Advocate who arranged for the preparation of sale-deed and its registration. In 1996 he visited the office of Patwari Halqa for the Mutation on the basis of sale-deed. Patwari halqa told him that the document was suspicious and it could not be accepted for mutation. Later on he got a fresh sale- deed registered and the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of second sale-deed.
10. The witnesses, thus deposed nothing against the appellant and Muhammad Rustam Bhatti in his inquiry findings dated 28-3-1997 remarked that the forged document was prepared in 1990 when the official was not posted in D.C. Office Lahore where the forgery occurred. The charge was not proved according to his findings. The de novo inquiry was ordered and Mr. Muhammad Khalid Zauq who registered the alleged forged deed was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He was complainant in this case and was thus interested person.
11. The appellate authority in the order dated 20-9-1999 has observed that the contention of the appellant that he had been found innocent by the Police case F.I.R. No,443 of 1996, under sections 420/468/678/409, P.P.C. And section 82 of Registration Act which was registered against the appellant on similar allegation is not tenable because Police investigation and proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 are quite different and have no bearing on each other. De novo inquiry was conducted by Mr. Khalid Zauq who registered the alleged forged documents. He proceeded ex parte but did not record the statement of any witness nor placed on record any documents. His findings are not based on any evidence. Being interested and prejudice as complaint, he hold the appellant guilty of the charge. The Authorised Officer made the following endorsement:- "Agree with the findings of Enquiry Officer. The accused official has been declared guilty. May impose major penalty."
12. ' He thus failed to apply his independent mind. Neither the authority nor the appellate authority realized that it is a case of no evidence and the Inquiry Officer has not based his finding on any oral or written evidence. Facts are to be proved and not presumed particularly for awarding the major penalty. Zahoor Ahmad, Advocate expired before the inquiry proceedings. The complainant Major Azmat Gulraiz deposed nothing against the appellant. Talib Hussain, Stamp Vendor, Haji Akbar Ali, Tanvir Ahmad, Waseeqa Navees resiled from their evidence and deposed nothing against the appellant in the first inquiry conducted by Muhammad Rustam Bhatti. According to the report of Investigating Officer there was no proof against the appellant because the witnesses Ch. Talib Hussain, Stamp Vendor and Haji Akbar Ali did not depose against the appellant before the Police.
13. No witnesses were examined during the de novo inquiry conducted by Mr. Khalid Zauq on the grounds that the appellant failed to attend the proceedings. Even in case of ex parte preceding it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to record the statement of the witnesses and place the documentary evidence on record and bases his findings on such oral or documentary evidence.
14. Reliance is placed at 1992 PLC (C.S.) 341.
15. ' In the light of above discussion, the Inquiry Officer has absolutely no basis for the findings recorded by him in his report dated 22-4-1998. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 10-7-1998 and 22-9-1999. The appellant is reinstated in service. The intervening period shall be treated as the leave of the kind due to the appellant. There will be no order as to the costs.