Mohsin Raza

Before the Chairman, Punjab Services Tribunal, Lahore.

Appeal against the orders of dismissal passed by Chief Engineer, Multan Irrigation Zone, dated 6.8.2001 and order dated 15.10.02 passed by the Secretary Irrigation & Power Deptt., Punjab.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the appellant has served this Department as Zilladar for a period of about 12 years. It was alleged that during his incumbency, while posted as Zilladar, Kukkar Hatta section of Multan Division, thirty one Tawan cases were not framed by him despite order of the higher authorities, resulting heavy loss to the Government (copies of statement of allegation & charge sheet are Annexes “A & B”).

2.

That, Deputy Collector, Multan was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry in a slip-shod manner without considering the facts given in the detailed reply of charge-sheet and statement of allegations, sent a few-worded incomplete one sided report to the Authorised Officer, who, also without going into detail of the case, without considering the defence reply, agreeing with the report of Inquiry Officer, recommended penalty of highest order against the appellant. (Copies of report & recommendation are Annexes “C & D”).

3.

That the Authority (Chief Engineer, Multan) without affording him reasonable opportunity of defence & without considering the points raised by the appellant, vide his order dated 6.8.2001 dismissed the appellant from the service. (Copy of dismissal order is Annex “E”).

4.

That the appellant filed an appeal before the Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore on 3.9.2001, which met the same fate, order of Chief Engineer, Multan was maintained vide order dated 20.11.02, hence, this appeal. (Copy of appeal & order dated 20.11.02 is Annex “F & F/1”).

5.

That the order of dismissal from the service passed by the Authority (Chief Engineer) and subsequent orders of the Secretary Irrigation & Power Department are illegal, ultravires and without lawful authority, hence, liable to be set aside on the following amongst other: GROUNDS i)

That the charge-sheet and statement of allegations were not issued/singed by the authorised officer rather the same was issued by the Superintending Engineer, Haveli Canal Circle, Multan. Therefore, no penalty could be imposed on the appellant on the basis of this charge-sheet.

ii)

That the Inquiry Officer conducted his inquiry in a slipshod manner, without affording reasonable opportunity of defence to the appellant. The appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the witness (Muhammad Aslam A.V.C.) against him nor any attention was paid to the objections raised by the appellant in his statement, before him. Despite the fact, the alleged Tawan cases were handed over by the appellant to his clerk (the said witness) duly acknowledged by him, but the inquiry officer took it very lightly and refuted the objection on the plea that the clerk has denied the acknowledgment, hence, only the accused/appellant is responsible. This clearly reflects that the accused was not dealt with fairly. This fact was also brought to the notice of Authority and Authorised Officer and also Secretary Irrigation & Power Department, but of no

avail. (Copies of defence reply are Annexes “G & H”). The Inquiry Report is non-speaking. iii)

That under the rules, a copy of the Inquiry Report is required to be supplied/given to the accused, but in the present case, no copy of Inquiry Report was supplied despite repeated requests, as such the appellants remained unaware of the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

iv)

That the witness whom the appellant desired to produce in his defence, was not examined by the Inquiry Officer, which amounts to denial of defence on the part of Inquiry Officer and also departure from the codal rules. The relevant record was also not mad available to the appellant.

v)

That the said lost cases of Tawan were reconstructed by the appellant and there is no loss to the Government. In these circumstances, extreme penalty of dismissal from the service is too harsh, unwarranted and unjustified. (Copy of letter dated 14.9.2001 is Annex “I”).

vi)

That the quantum of punishment has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet. Mere mentioning of rule respecting punishment amounts to keep the accused unaware of the punishment to be inflicted upon him.

vii)

That the Inquiry Report was kept pending by the Authority awaiting reconstruction of lost Tawan cases by the appellant and then to proceed further as is evident from letter No. A II/2001/0389/22/90 dated 11.6.2001 addressed to S.E. Haveli Canal Circle, Multan, this creates doubts that the Authority had already made up its mind to inflict maximum penalty. (Copy of letter is Annex “J”).

viii) That the Appellate Authority (Secretary Irrigation & Power Department) also did not consider the points raised by the appellant and only a two-worded order “the subject case was considered by the Administrative Department and filed on merits”. This cannot be termed a judicial disposal of a matter by the highest officer of the Department. In view of the above-stated facts, it is respectfully prayed that both the orders of dismissal of the appellant dated 6.8.2001 by the Chief Engineer, Multan and dated 15.10.2002 by the Secretary Irrigation & Power Department may very graciously be set aside in the interest of justice and equity and the appellant may also please be exonerated from the charges against him. Humble Petitioner, Dated: __________ MOHSIN RAZA, Zilladar, Village Tatepur, Chah Pirwala, P.O. Tatepur, Tehsil & District Multan. Through: Ziad Ahmad Mufti, Advocate High Court, 6-Allam Iqbal Block, District Courts, Multan.