1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 28th September, 1989. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑This case is more than 16 years old. It stemmed from the order dated 19‑3‑1973 passed by the appellant in the capacity of Assistant City Survey Officer, Karachi. The said order was purported to have revised the alignments of the Plot No. LY‑72/1/5 fixed during the City Survey Operations conducted in 1940. As such the appellant was alleged to have contravened section 21 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act and thereby caused loss of about 4 lacs to the Government. Therefore, he was charge‑sheeted and Additional Commissioner, Karachi was appointed as Enquiry Officer to make enquiry into the said mishap. After completing the enquiry he submitted his detailed report on 11‑7‑1975 holding that out of seven charges four charges were proved against the appellant. On the basis of the said report the Secretary, Revenue Department found the appellant guilty and punished him by withholding his four annual increments with cumulative effect vide his order dated 31‑7‑1977.

2. The appellant challenged the order of his punishment before the Chief Secretary who by his order dated 28‑8‑1978 rejected his appeal. Thereafter, the appellant filed Service Appeal No. 68 of 1978 before this Tribunal which was dismissed as time‑barred vide judgment dated 16‑3‑1980. The appellant went in appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Service Tribunal but somehow he withdrew the said appeal and pursued the matter before departmental authorities. He made review application to the Chief Secretary on 5‑10‑1981 for reconsideration of his decision. Thereupon, the Law Department was consulted who gave its opinion that before imposing penalty upon the appellant, show‑cause notice was to be given to him. Accordingly the case was . remanded back to the Revenue Department which Department recalled its earlier order of punishment on 15‑8‑1985 and issued the requisite show‑cause notice to the appellant. After receipt of his reply and giving him personal hearing, fresh order dated 24‑7‑1986 was passed whereby, appellant's four annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect. He challenged the said order in departmental appeal before the Chief Secretary who rejected the said appeal on 20‑1‑1988. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal on 11‑2‑1988. When the case was taken up for arguments, the appellant who was unrepresented submitted a statement in writing stating therein that he did not press the appeal on merits but instead requested for reduction in the penalty on the grounds mentioned in the statement. In view of the appellant's statement we need not discuss the merits of the case. We would rather confine ourselves only to the desirability of reducing the penalty. We heard both the appellant and the learned A.A.‑G., with regard to appellant's request for reduction in the penalty. We also went through the grounds on which the appellant has based his request. There is no doubt that the appellant has suffered mentally as well as financially for over one and half decades, and thereby has even otherwise been adequately punished Further, more, the order passed by the appellant which made him undergo the ordeal of long drawn litigation has already been nullified and therefore the loss likely to occur to Government has been avoided. We are also in agreement with the appellant that if the impugned order is implemented in toto, the benefit of move over when admissible to him under the rules would be postponed for four years. Besides all this, the rate of increment at the time of passing the impugned order had become greater then the rate when he was punished in the first instance.

3. Taking the above factors into consideration we are satisfied that reduction in the penalty would be justified. The learned A.A.‑G. also did not seriously oppose the reduction. In the circumstances of the case withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect, in our opinion would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we direct that the impugned order dated 1‑1‑7‑1!w, will suitably be modified so as to read that instead of four increments only two increments would be stopped from the date of the impugned order and that too without cumulative effect. Subject to modification of the penalty as above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./222/Sr. S Appeal dismissed/Order accordingly.