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, ultra-
vires 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 slip-

shod 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.