2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Rr. 3, 4, 6 & 7‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Minor punishment of stoppage of two annual increments‑‑‑Allegation against civil servant on basis of which punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed on him was that he had written two letters to Director containing objectionable material and that civil servant in those letters had used objectionable language which had reflected insubordination on the part of civil servant‑‑ Disputed letters were addressed by civil servant to Director who was officer a one step senior in rank to the civil servant‑‑‑Letters contained a reference to some taxation and also some proposals for elimination of corruption in registration on forged documents‑‑‑Nothing unethical or objectionable was found in those letters‑‑‑Remarks given in letters with religious tinge, could be considered a little bold and blunt, but not unethical or objectionable from any angle or on any moral principle‑‑‑Order imposing penalty on civil servant was set aside in circumstance. Appellant in person. JUDGMENT The appellant while posted as Excise and Taxation Officer, Motor Branch, Lahore was proceeded against under Punjab Civil Servants E&D Rules, 1999 on grounds of misconduct etc. in May 2000.. Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that one allegation out of three, was proved against him and. therefore, minor punishment of stoppage of two annual increments was imposed on the appellant on 21‑‑1‑2001. The appellant preferred departmental appeal which was rejected on 20‑12‑2001 hence the present appeal.

2. The appellant is present in person and has argued his own case pointing out that he has been victimized mainly because of his uncompromising attitude on elimination of corruption. He has further maintained that only allegation proved against the appellant was that he had used objectionable and unethical language in the official letter/correspondence. The appellant further states, that he requested the Enquiry Officer to highlight portions of the letters containing objectionable language but Enquiry Officer instead of specifying the portion insisted on the allegation and later imposed on him the punishment of stoppage of two increments out of mala vide. It is further maintained that the allegation was totally baseless and that the letter addressed by the appellant contained nothing unethical or objectionable. The appellant has also drawn attention to the enclosures with his appeal which were considered to contain unethical and objectionable language but actually normal language was used in those letters.

3. The learned District Attorney arguing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the appeal pointing out that order has been passed by the Enquiry Officer in accordance with the law. It is further maintained that the letter dated 22‑4‑2000 written by the appellant to the Director E&T Lahore contained objectionable contents. Similarly letter dated 4‑5‑2000 written by the appellant also contained objectionable language which reflected insubordination on the part of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was subjected to the penalty on ground of violation of the service discipline which, was fully justified in law.

4. I have considered the contentions of the parties and also perused contents of the disputed letters dated 22‑4‑2000 and 4‑5‑2000. These letters are addressed to the Director E&T, Lahore who is an officer one step senior in rank to the appellant. Letters contain a reference to some taxation and also some proposals for elimination of corruption in registration on forged documents. I do not find anything unethical or objectionable in these letters. In the letter dated 4‑5‑2000 the appellant was constrained to write the following remarks: "It is evident that such type of slanderous allegations which were levelled just to compel the undersigned to join hands with my colleagues in promotion of corruption, do not commensurate with the job requirements entrusted to you. It is hope that in future you will to afraid of the Almighty God while sitting in the office chair as we are living in this world for a short while and we are answerable regarding our so called noble acts." Perhaps it was these remarks with religious tings which outrage the senior departmental officers resulting in the imposition of penalty on the appellant. One can consider the remarks a little bold and blunt but no unethical or objectionable from any angle or any sense of any moral principles. Therefore, considering the acts of the case, the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. H.B.T./83/PST. Appeal accepted.