1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. S. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑Muhammad Bashir has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the State, Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Samundri, District Faisalabad and the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugn ed orders dismissing the appellant from service passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Samundri and upheld by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner, Faisal abad vide his Memo. No. 1331‑MICA, dated 9th January, 1981 informed the Assistant Commissioner, Samundri that the appellant prepared wrong statements of average sale price with the mala fide intention of benefiting the allottees concerned. On receipt of the above letter the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by respondent No. 3 under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 for the allegations and also placed him under suspension on 22nd February, 1981. The appellant submitted the reply to the show‑cause notice .on 13th May, 1980 which was considered by the A. C./Collector, Samundri. He was also beard in person. As his explanation to the show‑cause notice was not found satisfactory, hence the appellant was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 20th June, 1981 of A. C./Collector. Samundri. The appellant submitted an appeal to the Commissioner, Sargodha. Division, Sargodha which was also rejected vide his order, dated 17th October, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. We have beard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant in the first instance, in the year 1980, had prepared the statement of average sale price of land for grant of proprietary right to the different allottees of village Chak No. 608/G.B as detailed in the show‑cause notice on the available record with the appellant. But later on, when more record was available and scrutinized under the supervision of the Colony Assistant, Faisalabad in February, 1981, it came to the notice of the appellant that the average sale price of land was more than the statements originally prepared by him. After due verification, the mistake was rectified by the appellant and the statements on higher price were prepared by the appellant himself. As the appellant has himself prepared the later statements, on the higher sale price, hence no ulterior motive can be' attributed to the appellant. If the appellant had bad intention, he would have not prepared the later statements but would have tried to conceal the record and would have asked his superiors to rely on the earlier statements prepared by him. It has been, further, pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that all this has happened as no proper mind was applied by the Assistant Commissioner concerned while punishing the appellant. His case was decided in hurry. No inquiry was held in the matter. If a thorough probe would have 'been done in the matter, this fact would have come to the light to the Assistant Commissioner concerned that the appellant was not at fault at all. The variation of the average sale price of land as mentioned in both the state ments happened due to non‑availability of complete record ; which the appellant could not lay hand when the first statements were prepared by him. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that as no inquiry was conducted against the appellant and he was not afforded an opportunity to produce evidence, put up his defence and thus the appellant has been punished without proving the allegations against him. The appellant is innocent in the matter. He has also submitted that it is a settled law that where a person is alleged of corruption charges, holding of a regular inquiry is must so that be could be provided the opportunities to defend himself by putting up his defence. It has also been pointed out by him that no loss has accrued to the Government as the allottees have been charged higher sale price while transferring them the proprietary rights. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that while deciding the case of the appellant, the res pondent No. 3 had not kept in view the appellant's long unblemished service of 21 years. 5.On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that later statements of average sale price of land prepared under the supervision of Colony Assistant, Faisalabad were quite different from the earlier statement prepared by the appellant which were found totally incorrect. The average sale price shown by the appellant in earlier state ments ranged from Rs. 1,340 to Rs. 1,360 per acre while the sale price in the statements prepared later on showed the average sale price as Rs. 6,075 per acre. The earlier statements were prepared at muchless average sale price by the appellant with ul rior motive and in order to give the undue allottees. Thus, the appellant is guilty of gross misconduct and has been punished correctly and lawfully.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties. We have perused the impugned order dated 20th June, 1981 of A. C./Collector, Samundri. The impugned order mentions that the earlier statements and later statements were prepared by the appellant. The earlier statements were prepared by the appellant himself after con sultation of the record independently and the later statements were pre pared also by the appellant while present in the office of the Colony Assistant. Faisalabad. Thus, it is clear that both the statements had been prepared by the appellant ; though differently. During the course of the arguments we have satisfied ourselves that there was no ill‑intention on the part of the appellant in preparing these statements. The difference in the average price in the statements prepared at different times has been inadvertent due to the facts that this was an honest mistake on the part of the appellant in consultation of the record. We are also conscious of the fact that though the appellant was alleged of preparing wrong state ments of average sale price with the obvious intention of benefiting the but no regular enquiry was held as required under the law to provide opportunities to the appellant to defend himself by producing the evidence. Thus, the appellant has also been prejudiced in the matter and we are in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that if an enquiry would have been held in this case, it would have been found out that there was no ill or mala fide intention on the part of the appellant and the appellant was only negligent in performance of his duties. Keeping the above analysis of the case in view, we consider that the punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh and not inconsonance with the fault of the appellant, especially keeping in view 21 years long service of the appellant.

7. The up shot of the above discussion is that punishment awarded vide impugned order, dated 20th June, 1981 of Assistant Commissioner/, Collector, Samundri and upheld by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, vide his impugned order, dated 17th October, 1981, is varied a follows :‑

(a) Censure. (b) Stoppage of increment for two years without future effect. The period for which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as leave of the kind due. There will be no order as to costs. A. R. Order accordingly.