BASHIR AHMAD Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB

Rana Bashir Ahmad, ex‑Excise and Taxation Inspector has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director‑General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab Lahore, the Director Excise and Taxation, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and the Excise and Taxation officer, Rawalpindi as res pondents.

2. by virtue of this appellant has prayed that the order, dated 31 st May, 1982 removing the appellant from service be set aside. He has further prayed that the so‑called enquiry conducted by the res pondent No. 2 also be set aside with back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Rana Bashir Ahmad, was working as Excise and Taxation Inspector, Rawalpindi. The appel lant was served with a charge‑sheet. dated 25th November, 1981. The appellant was suspended from service on 29th November, 1981. The appellant submitted his written reply to the charge‑sheet on 7th December, 1981. A Departmental enquiry was initiated against the appel lant. During the course of enquiry it was found out that the appellant has also allegedly tampered with the record. Thus, another charge -sheet was served upon the appellant by the authorised officer on 16th March, 1982. The appellant was re‑instated in service on 17th March, 1982 after about 3 months of suspension. The enquiry was completed against the appellant by the Enquiry Officer. The charges of misconduct were proved against the appellant and he was removed from service by the Director, Excise and Taxation, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi vide his impugned order, dated 31st May, 1982. The appellant made an appeal on 19th June, 1982 to the Director‑General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore which has not since been disposed off. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. The appellant was firstly proceeded for alleged absence from duty and later on for the serious charges of tamper ing with his diaries, previously submitted, for the months of August, September and October, 1981, with dishonest motives to cover up his defi ciency in the performance of his duties.

5. I have heard at length the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney to adjudicate this issue. The appellant was beard in person at bar to arrive at the correct decision.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have very carefully perused the record, especially the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and the defence put forwarded by the appellant in writing running in 23 pages, dated 29th May, 1982. From perusal of the written defence of the appellant and report of the Enquiry Officer, it is quite clear and evident that the appellant is guilty of misconduct in tampering/addition in the diaries and these charges are proved beyond any doubts.

7. Keeping the above facts in view, I hold that there are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.