1998 PLP 2594 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.,

This is an appeal with the leave of the Court against the judgment dated 13-11-1993 of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 489 of 1991 filed by the appellant against the order of withholding of his one increment for a period of one year, dismissing the same. The brief facts are that the appellant at the relevant time was working as an Excise and Taxation Officer. He reduced the assessment of the premises occupied by Five Star Flour Mills, Haroonabad Road, Bahawalnagar from Rs.11,000 to Rs.6,000 per annum. The department initiated the disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 against the appellant. As a result of that the above minor penalty was imposed upon him. The appellant after availing of the departmental appeal filed the above appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. Thereupon, the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court, which was granted to consider, whether the appellant was justified in reducing the assessment and whether the punishment imposed upon the appellant was justifiable or otherwise. In support of the above appeal the appellant has appeared in person. He has vehemently contended that he had carried out the assessment on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Lyallpur Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Sargodha Division and another (PLD 1976 Supreme Court 615), in which it has been inter alia laid down that under section 5 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with rule 6(e) of the Rules framed under the Act, the basis of assessment should be either the actual gross annual rent or the gross annual rent that could reasonably be earned during the financial year immediately preceding the current financial year or might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. The Tribunal has dilated upon this aspect of the case as follows: "The appellant should have given reasons when he initially proposed Rs.11,000 as against the assessment of Rs.4,800 made by the Inspector and the A.E. & T.O. The increase appeared to be whimsical. Since it involved difference of opinion between the appellant on one side, and his subordinates on the other, he should have advanced some cogent reasons to overrule them. Further, the A.E. & T.O. made some attempt to impress upon the Appellant that the assessment of Rs.4,800 was appropriate but the appellant took no notice thereof. Above all, it was a technical matter lying in the subjective satisfaction of the higher authorities whose view normally had to be accepted implicitly." In our view, this Court cannot examine the question, as to, whether the assessment made by the appellant as Rs.6,000 was warranted or not under the Act. This question could have been examined by the forums provided under the Act. The only point which could have been agitated before this Court was whether there was any infirmity in the above disciplinary action taken against the appellant. The appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in the above disciplinary action which could have warranted interference by this Court The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. A.A./K-20/S Appeal dismissed.