1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. The learned counsel had mentioned that it was the fault of the deceased Ashfaq Bari who had himself without any instructions for cutting down the branches climbed‑up a pole, which was not included in programme of 21‑10‑1992. It was his own mistake for which the appellant was not responsible, but the Department had suspended the appellant vide order dated 24‑10‑1992. Later on the appellant had been given an explanation/charge‑sheet on 11‑1‑1992 with the allegations as under:‑‑ "You are held responsible for lack of control over your subordinate and to adopt precautionary measure while attending the public complaint/maintenance of Line treming of trees." The fatal accident occurred to Mr. Ashfaq Bari, Assistant Lineman on 21‑10‑1992 tentamounts to your negligence." He had replied on 17‑1‑1993, but it was not considered satisfactory and enquiry was also held on 9‑12‑1992 by the Deputy Director (safety) to find out the causes and responsibilities of the staff involved in the death of Ashfaq Bari, A.L.M. The findings are as under:‑‑ The Committee after thorough investigation reached to the following conclusion. (1) Mr. Gul Faraz LM‑I Incharge of the Complaint Office is responsible as he left the job to his juniors. (2) Mr. Jehanzeb LM‑II of General Gang is responsible allowing Mr. Ishfaq Bari, A.L.M. the deceased to climb up the pole. (3) Mr. Muhammad Iqbal LS‑I (Maintenance) is also indirect responsible not to point out the possibility of flow of electricity from the energized 50KVA Transformer through the flying jumper."

3. Later on the appellant had been reinstated vide order dated 7‑2‑1993, but the disciplinary proceedings were to be proceeded against him. A show -cause notice had been served on him on 15‑4‑1993. The appellant had submitted its reply on 22‑4‑1993, but it was not acceded to. Finally vide order dated 2‑9‑1993, the appellant was given penalty of `reduction to lower grade as LS‑II' for two years and the Linemen were also given minor penalties. Appellant had made a representation, which was rejected on 26‑9‑1993. The learned counsel had submitted that since the LS‑I was not responsible for this accident, as he had gone to other site of work and the deceased Ashfaq Bari had climbed‑up the pole against the instructions, the appeal should be accepted and order of penalty of reduction should be set aside.

4. The learned counsel and the representative of the respondent Authority had clarified that at the time of accident and death of A.L.M. Ashfaq Bari, neither the LS‑I (appellant) and nor the two Linemen were there who could advise and stop Ashfaq Bari not to climb‑up the said pole. All the three persons were missing. The appellant being the L.S. Incharge had failed to switch off the said pole on which the deceased Ashfaq bad climbed‑up and had died after electric shock. This was the main responsibility of the incharge officer i.e. the appellant who had neither supervised the work on the site nor performed his duties well and had slipped away. The punishment of reduction to lower post was given by the respondent‑Authority after following the prescribed procedure. The punishment was quite lenient, otherwise the appellant deserved dismissal/removal, because valuable life of Ashfaq Bari had been lost.

5. Under the aforementioned circumstances, we find that the punishment by the respondent‑Authority to the appellant is quite lenient and it does not require further reduction. The appeal is devoid of merit and substance and the departmental order dated 2‑9‑1993 does not need an interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order for costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./924/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.