1997SCMR1161 (PLP)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine whether the Service Tribunal while upholding the conclusions of the departmental authorities' against the respondent was justified in interfering and reducing the penalty imposed on him.

2. The respondent was employed as a Stenographer. He' was charged for misconduct on three counts. One of the charges was that "on receipt of his suspension orders, he started abusing, threatening and snarling at Secretary (RAB), WAPDA, in a filthy tone". The departmental authorities on enquiry found this allegation to be true and the sort of language which the respondent used finds mention at pages 8 and 9 of the Enquiry Office Report. The competent authority passed an Order of removing him from service on 9‑6‑1984. After his departmental appeal had failed, he approached the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal while maintaining the finding of guilt on charges of misconduct, interfered with the punishment of removal, observing as hereunder: "We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent department. It has been noted that the officer with whom the appellant had worked for four years stated before the Enquiry Officer that the work of the appellant had been satisfactory. On the other hand we have also noted that the appellant was found guilty of allegations mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondent and we are of the view that the official did not conduct himself properly. On weighing the pros and cons of the case we feel that while the official was guilty of misconduct the punishment has been heavy and that forfeiture of three increments would be an adequate punishment. We, therefore, direct that the appellant shall be reinstated in service. He shall, however, forefeit three increments and also that the period he has out of service shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay."

3. Mr. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, informed us that the respondent had also appealed against the finding of the Tribunal, but had later withdrawn the same from this Court. He has not appeared to contest, as this Court had suspended the operation of the order of the Tribunal. The appeal had been heard ex parte against him, as the Advocate‑on- Record stated that he had no instructions in the matter.

4. It appears to us that the Tribunal interfering with the punishment had not read in detail the report of the Enquiry Officer. From the sort of language which was used by the respondent for his superiors, of which he was found guilty and for which he was punished, it is hard to believe that any Tribunal or functionary could allow continuance in employment a subordinate who uses such language against his superiors or uses such language when being dealt with departmentally. Such a conduct has two obnoxious features. Firstly, it shows an extreme act of misconduct. Such functionaries are expected to observe decorum and grace both in language and conduct in dealing with the public and the superiors. Secondly, such a conduct suggests an element of blackmail, whereby superiors can be prevented from taking disciplinary actions against those at fault.

5. In the circumstances, we think that such a misconduct is pervasive and cannot justify any interference in the punishment awarded on any ground legal or equitable. Hence, we accept tile appeal, set aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal and dismiss his appeal before the Tribunal against the punishment of removal from service. A.A./D‑130/S Appeal accepted.