ALAMGIR Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MULTAN

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to the two employees of the Forest Department to examine whether rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 is ultra vires of Article 25 of the Constitution and whether on facts the dismissal of the appeals A filed by the appellants before the Service Tribunal was justified.

2. During the Eid holidays of 1984, two Shisham trees from Chak Nos.9 and 10 were unauthorisedly removed. The Divisional Forest Officer received a confidential information to that effect and also it was reported to him that irrigation water meant for Forest area was sold unauthorisedly during Eid holidays from Chak No.9 to private land owners. He asked confidentially his subordinate to look into the matter and report to him. The Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer (SDFO) who inquired into the matter reported on 26‑9‑1984 as hereunder:‑‑

"It is submitted that two Shisham trees were cut illicitly from Chak Nos.IX and X during Eid holidays. I had investigated the matter and come to the conclusion that the Shisham trees were cut without the connivance of the field staff from Chak No.X but the tree cut from Chak No.IX compartment No.64/E lying wind fallen over the main was removed with the connivance of field staff (B.O.& F.G.). The compensation and value and this damage had been realized. As regards selling of irrigation water from Chak No.IX it is incorrect, as Chak No.IX is surrounded by F.D. on its northern side, by Chak NO.VI‑A on western side, on Chak VIII, on southern side and Chak No.Xl on western side."

3. The Divisional Forest Officer as the Authorised Officer decided to adopt the shorter procedure of show‑cause notice which was served on the two appellants. The factual aspect of the charge was controverter but the Divisional Forest Officer without holding any inquiry passed the operative order as hereunder:‑‑

"The explanations submitted by the accused officials seem an after thought and concocted story because they connived in the illicit disposal of Shisham tree valuing Rs.1,300 and on information about the complaint they issued damage report etc.

Considering all the above i.e. report of S.D.F.O. Muhammad Naseer Ahmad Khan, explanation of the accused officials and personal hearing, the connivance of the accused officials has been proved and they deserve dismissal from service but taking a lenient view I hereby decide the case as under:‑‑

(1) Mr. Zafar Iqbal Forester:

(i) Reduced to the minimum of basic pay scale i.e. Rs.520 per month

{ii) Character roll warning to be careful in future. (2) Mr. Alamgir F. Guard:

(i) Reduced to the minimum of basic pay scale i.e. Rs.460 per month

(ii) Character roll warning to be careful in future."

4. This was challenged in appeal before the Conservator of Forests and before the Service Tribunal but without any success. The defence of the appellants was that they had not connived at the felling of the Shisham trees, that it had been unauthorisedly done and reported, the charges against the appellants were decided against them without recording any evidence of their immediate superior with regard to the complaint.

5. On the factual side of the case we find that in the preliminary inquiry or the so‑called investigation conducted by the Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer the appellants were not associated at all. The findings of fact had been recorded behind their back. Out of the three charges of having connived and cut the two Shisham trees and having sold irrigation water, only one appeared to be tenable to the Investigating Officer. It was of felling of one Shisham tree. In their defence, it appears, they had mentioned that the reports had been duly lodged. The finding of this report of being antedated has been made on visual inspection of the report and not on examination of the record of the Department or by reference to their immediate superior officer.

6. In the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis‑ur‑Rahman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134 it has been pointed out that in what circumstances recourse to the shorter procedure of show‑cause is justified. For resolving controverted questions of fact where evidence has to be recorded and opportunity of cross‑examination has to be given, the proper course is always to hold a full‑fledged inquiry. Otherwise, the findings recorded, as in this case, will be based more on conjectures than on evidence/material available on record properly produced and accepted.

7. Without going into the larger question of vires of rules, we accept the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal and while accepting the service appeals of the two appellants set aside their order of punishment. This would, however, not preclude the competent authority from proceeding afresh by way of a formal inquiry into the allegations levelled against them. No order is made as to costs.

AA A‑982/S Appeals accepted