Sarwar Ateeq Pasha Vs Provisional Director Local Fund Audit

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as earned District Attorney on behalf of the state at length and perused the record. From perusal of record, it appears that the Inquiry Officer did not record the statement of any witness and he only referred the carlier statements made by the witnesses in earlier inquiry proceedings in which the appellant was merely warned to be careful in future. Moreover, the Departmental Authority while deciding the appeal of the appellant and enhanced the penalty of withholding of promotion for 05 years and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. No reasons have been mentioned by the Appellate Authority that on what basis it came to conclusion and held the appellant liable to enhanced the punishment. It is further pertinent to note that the missing record was traced out and missing record was found at steps of main gate of the said office located at 10-W-102 Madina Town, Faisalabad when the judicial action was recommended against Mr. M.Nawaz Senior Clerk, M. Yaseen Chowkidar by ACE. So, the missing ecord was traced out after the proceeding conducted by the Anti- Corruption Department from the steps of the office of the department at Madina Town, Faisalabad. It is further pertinent to note that the appellant had relinquished the charge of his post on 17.04.2017, while The matter was first time brought on record on 09.05.2018 about more han one year after relinquishing the charge of his post by the appellant. I have further perused the statement of the witnesses recorded in the earlier inquiry proceedings. Irfan Ali Daftri has attributed the main charge about the missing of record to Muhammad. Ahmad Assistant Director and he stated that due to the personal animosity of M. Ahmad with Sarwar Ateeq, he has made an attempt to Frame the appellant Sarwar Ateeq for missing of the record. I have also perused the statement of M. Yaseen who also did not attribute any role to the appellant in missing of the record. So, I am unable to understand that what evidence was available on record to hold the appellant as guilty of the charges. Moreover, the appellant has been given a very harsh punishment against the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and the Departmental Appellate Authority itself enhanced the punishment of withholding of promotion for 05 years into dismissal from service without giving any reasons.6. For the aforgoing reasons, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, the appellant is reinstated in service, however, the intervening period is treated as eave of the kind due.