1984 PLP (C (PLC)

Allah Bakhsh, Ex‑Naib Qasid, Deputy Commissioner's Office, Multan bas made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Multan and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Multan as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 18th November, 1982 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), respondent No. 2, and the order, dated 19th February, 1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, respondent No. 1 be set aside. He has further prayed that he be declared to be continuous in service with all the back benefits of service/remunerations, etc.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was placed under suspension on account of corruption vide order, dated 15th September, 1982 of Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Multan. He was served with a show‑cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D), Rules, 1975 by the same authority on 15th September, 1982. The appel lant submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice refuting the allegations levelled against him which was considered by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Multan and removed the appellant from service vide his order, dated 18th November, 1982. The appellant made an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Multan which was rejected vide his order, dated 19th February, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case the appellant was charged with the allegations of corruption and no regular enquiry has been held to allow the appellant to provide the opportunities to defend himself by producing the witnesses in his defence. Thus, he has been prejudiced in the matter. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this Tribunal in so many cases, relying on the judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1980 P L C (C. S.) 418, 1980 P L C (C. S.) 611. 1980 P L C (C. S.) 562 and P L D 1974 S C 393 has already held that in cases in volving charges of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to hold a regular enquiry. This has not been done in this case. Since the pro vision of rules has not been complied with in this case, hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the authority in this case i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Multan Las been influenced by the Deputy Com missioner, Multan in dealing and deciding of this case as is apparent from the record. Thus, the punishment awarded to the appellant is unjustified and unlawful,

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the appellant has himself admitted his fault as is clear from the record. Thus, he has been correctly and lawfully punished.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also carefully consulted the record in this case.

7. No doubt, there is a lacuna in this case that no regular enquiry was held and the appellant has been proceeded under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, but record shows that the appellant is at fault in this case. However, at the time of arguing this case it has been pointed out that the appellant had 12 years of service to his credit and this was the only blemish on his part since he joined the service. Keeping this fact in view, I consider that the extreme penalty of removal from service given to the appellant is harsh and while deciding the punish ment, the service record, length of service, of the appellant has not beenkept in view. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as P L D 1977 S C 24.

8. Keeping the above analysis in view, the punishment is variedly modified as below :‑ (i) Censure. (ii) Stoppage of annual increments for two years, without future effect. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service. But, the period for which the appellant remained out of service (from the date of his removal from service to that of his re‑instatement in service) will be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay. The appeal is partly accepted and the impugned orders are modified to the above extent only. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.