ALLAH YAR KHAN vs EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE EXCISE AND TAXATION), CHAKWAL and another
The petitioner, a Naib-Qasid, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld his dismissal from service. The petitioner had been dismissed following allegations of misappropriation involving forged signatures and bogus bills, despite having been previously acquitted of the same criminal charges by a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The departmental proceedings were conducted without a regular inquiry, relying solely on a show-cause notice procedure. The petitioner contended that the dismissal was procedurally flawed due to the lack of a regular inquiry and the failure to consider his criminal acquittal, which was based on a lack of evidence connecting him to the alleged offenses. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised regarding the necessity of a regular inquiry and the impact of the criminal acquittal on the departmental proceedings were substantial and required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the dismissal without a regular inquiry was legally sustainable and whether the acquittal on identical charges rendered the summary departmental action unjustified.
- Whether the dismissal of a civil servant on the basis of allegations contained in a show-cause notice, without a regular inquiry, is proper and legal?
- Whether the acquittal of a civil servant from a criminal charge on the same allegations for want of evidence reflects upon the charge of misconduct in departmental proceedings?
- Is departmental action justified without detailed scrutiny of the matter when the underlying criminal charges have resulted in an acquittal?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 6-8-2002 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in service appeal filed by him against his dismissal from service.
2. The petitioner, a Naib-Qasid in the Office of District Accounts Office, Chakwal, was served with a show-cause notice containing the allegation that he, by preparing bogus bills and forging the signatures of concerned officials, misappropriated different amounts, mentioned therein, and caused financial loss to the Government. The petitioner was also prosecuted for the criminal charge on the basis of same allegations but ultimately was acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption on 8-3-2000. The petitioner was served with the show-cause notice while he was in jail and in reply to the show-cause notice, denied the allegation. The Authorized Officer, without holding a regular inquiry into the allegations, concluded the proceedings and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, recommended imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service and the competent authority on the basis of recommendations of the Authorized Officer, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner having availed the remedy of departmental appeal, filed service appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner having been found not guilty of the charge of preparing the fake bills and withdrawal of amount with the forged signatures of all concerned, was acquitted from the criminal case, with the observation that there was no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. Learned counsel submitted that even the report of Handwriting Expert, which was most important piece of evidence to ascertain the correctness of the allegation of preparing the bills and withdrawal of amount with the forged signatures of number of officials and officers involved in the transaction, was not brought on record and that the departmental action was taken against the petitioner without any evidence and holding a regular inquiry and also providing him a proper Opportunity of defence.
3. Learned counsel submitted that it was not possible for the petitioner, a Naib-Qasid, to undertake the exercise of completing lengthy procedure for withdrawal of amount all alone but the departmental authorities, without fixing the liability of concerned officials, held the petitioner responsible for preparing the fake bills with the signatures of said officials. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances of the case, a regular inquiry was necessary to ascertain the correct factual position, without which the petitioner could not be held responsible for the alleged embezzlement.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, being not without force, would need examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to consider the following question:- "(a) Whether the dismissal of petitioner from service on the basis of allegations contained in the show-cause notice, without a regular inquiry, was proper and legal? And
(b) Whether the acquittal of petitioner from criminal charge on the same allegations for want of evidence, would not reflect upon the charge of misconduct and the departmental action, without detail scrutiny of matter, would be justified?