1

To,
Mr.Riaz Akhtar Khan
The Inquiry Officer Director (P&D)
Punjab Highways Department
Lahore.

No. ___________/,

Dated.____________/2013

Subject:-

ORDER (DEFENCE REPLY AGAINST CHARGE SHEET)

Reference:

Government of Punjab C&W Department No.So.D.II(C&W) 12-08-2013 dated.04-102013 received on ___________

Respected Sir,
With utmost reverence I have the honour to submit my defence reply as Contra:Preliminary Objections.
1- Instant charge sheet is contrary to Law & fact hence is not maintainable due to
violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan 1973 vize ultra vires Articles 4,25&27&240 of constitution
ibid.
2- Non oppprtioning of responsibility as is required under section 7a of the PEEDA
Act 2006.
3- Non furnishing list of prosecution witnesses under section 9(2) of Act ibid
alongwith charge sheet hence it cause materially prejudiced behavior in terms of
Laws / principles settled by the Superior Courts for the sake of Justice .
4-

Simultaneously charges of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption as

separately defined in section 3 of ibid Act, have been leveled which according to
the Rules of natural Justice are not maintainable / sustainable on the strength of
Law / on the face of Probe report.

5- I was not associated by the committee which was a mandatory requirement of Law
On Facts
Briefly stated that charge does not relates to the undersigned for the following reasons that:
1- In the present case according to the record responsibility of check measurements
which were 100% made & certified by the S.D.O is evident and payments were
made against the valid /Lawful certificate & check measurements by the S.D.O
concerned, thus he is sole responsible to prove his certification
1

2
2- Measurements book may also prove the fact that after recording measurements by
such Engineer those were physically checked / certified by the S.D.O in charge.
3- Non production of M.Bs by the S.D.O / Sub Engineer itself creates doubt on their
part of concerneds if they have not got any legal action in this context as mandatory
requirement of Law.
4- Probe report itself depict / reflects that Jail Admn has made alterations by
demolition of structures at their own end without prior approval by the competent
Authorities of Executing agency as no body had access to Jail premises thus matter
needs attention of your goodself while fixing responsibility.
5- It is also an established fact fact that already matter was enquired by the A.C.E
thoroughly who also got samples checked through U.E.T in order to ascertain
quality of material . Thus report was satisfactory hence dropped.
6- B&R code permit the Executive Engineer to check 10% of whole payments made
during financial year or 24 bills which ever he chooses at his own discretion. Thus
in the instant case certificate of the S.D.O was for 100% measurements checked by
him hence charge is not sustainable to my extent as I did not record any percentage
in this case.
Prayer
Under the circumstances it is requested that I may kindly be exonerated from the charge to my
extent.

Muhammad Sharif
District Officer (Building)
Gujrat.
(Then Executive Engineer, 3rd
Provincial Building Division,
Lahore)