1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. The appeal has, come up today for regular hearing. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had entered the service as National Savings Officer and he could not be reduced in rank to the post of Deputy National Savings Officer: He has further contended that the quantum of punishment- also needs serious consideration in view of' the charges against the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has opined that the punishment awarded on appellant is not onerous but there may be scope for consideration for awarding lesser punishment.

4. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the following charges contained in the charge-sheet dated 11-2,-1987: (i) While- working as Officer Incharge. National Savings Centre, Bhati Gate, Lahore, you un-authorisedly handed over keys of from Safe to your 2nd Officer on 6-7-1986 without prior approval of the competent authority. (ii) You remained away from the Centre from 6-7-1986 to 12-7-1986 to manage medical certificates to avoid compliance of transfer order dated 5-7-1986 and did not pay proper attention towards your official duties, which tantamount to in efficiency and misconduct (iii) On 27-11-1987 in contravention of rules and orders of the controlling officer you submitted Form T.R. I of the charge of the post of National Savings Officer, National Savings Centre, Bliali (late, Lahore, instead of joining duties in the National Savings Centre, Raiwind. (iv) You remained wilfully absent from duty from 6-8-1986 to 23-12-1986. (vi) In spite of the fact that being a 'Law Graduate you are aware that no appeal could be made against the transfer orders and the matter did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts; you filed a suit in the Civil Court which is misconduct. (vi) In spite of receiving instructions on2-12-1986 and having been declared fit to resume duty on 9-12-1986 by the Civil Surgeon, Lahore, you wilfully remained absent till 23-12-1986, from National Savings Centre, Raiwind. The appellant denied some of the charges and furnished explanation in respect of the rest. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him of the charge at S.No. (i) and held him guilty of other charges. The charges, reproduced above, are by and large in respect of absence of the appellant from duty and some lapse on his part in taking over charge at the place of his new posting. It is on the record that he had remained on medical leave for some time during the intervening period. The lapse on his part did not, in the circumstances, call for a major penalty, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant could not be reduced in rank to a post lower than that that he had entered the department. In our view, the punishment of withholding of increments for four years would be sufficient. We accordingly, partly allow the appeal and modify the penalty of reduction in rank to that of withholding of annual increments for four years without cumulative effect.

5. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be clarified that this order shall be effective from the date of original order of removal from service. M.Y.H./633/Sr.P Appeal partly allowed.