Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1626 1985 SLD 1626 1985 PLC 170
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Case No. 345/1870 of 1982, decided on 18th October, 1983.
S. ABDUL, JABBAR KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY, MEMBER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD HASSAN

VS

THE COMMISSIONER MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and another

Law:

Section:

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975-- ---R.6--Dismissal from service on charge of misconduct--Regular enquiry held, but witness examined in appellant's absence--No opportunity to cross-examine afforded--Allegations against appellant not proved beyond doubt--Tribunal held appellant guilty of negligence in performance of duties--Punishment of dismissal in circumstances not in consonance with guilt--Varied to censure with stoppage of two increments. Muhammad Iqbal Sargana for Appellant. A.G. Humayun District Attorney for Respondents. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Muhammad Hassan has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Depalpur as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 26-4-1982 passed by respondent No.1 and order, dated 30-5-1981 passed by respondent No. 2 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Patwari in Halqa Tulla Kamboh, in the year 1980. The complaint was received against him that he had tampered with Canal Khatunis for the harvest of Rabi 1978 and thereby inflated demand of Abiana against Ghulam Qadir in Dhal Bachh. Two preliminary enquiries were conducted and it was found that the appellant had inflated demand/reduced demand against some "assamis" in the canal Khatunis in connivance with the Canal Patwari. Thus, he had committed serious irregularities. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 24-4-1980. He submitted the reply to charge-sheet on 5-5-1980 before Tehsildar Depalpur who was appointed a regular Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report to the authority. The appellant was also heard in person by the authority i.e. respondent No.2. Consequently he was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service vide order, dated 30-5-1981. The appellant submitted an appeal to respondent No.1 which was dismissed vide his order, dated 26-4-1982. Hence this appeal. 4. We…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492