2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant, Project Manager, Local Government and Rural Development, Markaz Mansoorwali, District Gujranawala was due for move-over from BS-17 to BS-18 w.e.f 1-12-1988. He was, however, granted the same w.e.f. 1-12-1993 vide order, dated 17-1-1998 (Annex "A"). He represented against this illegal decision on 26-4-1998 but the department failed to attend to it and after passage of 90 days, the appellant was obliged to file this appeal before this Tribunal.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant possesses unblemished service record spread over 26 years, nevertheless, he was refused move-over on account of the fact that in the year 1988 he was imposed penalty of 'censure' by the order of the Director -General, Rural Development, Punjab, Lahore.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant possessed good service record, the penalty of 'censure' could not have deprived him of his legitimate due and the interpretation of the relevant rules made by the department was patently erroneous. Visualizing the mistake, the department itself moved the competent authority and the Governor Punjab was pleased to order vide Circular letter, dated 17-4-1993 that 'censure' being a minor penalty of lowest order/ordering warning may be ignored while deciding the cases of move-over to the next higher scale, as such, the order of the department refusing him to grant move-over w.e.f. 1-12-1988 was totally unjustified.

4. Department has refuted the claim of the appellant contending, inter alia, that according to rules at the relevant time, penalty of 'censure' was a valid ground to debar the grant of move-over, as such, the appeal was not maintainable.

5. Arguments have been heard and record has been gone through.

6. Record shows that the appellant had been proceeded against on a number of charges and the Authorised Officer vide his order, dated 22-3-1988 exonerated him of the charges and imposed the penalty of 'censure' for inability of the appellant to reconcile the accounts. In order to assess and ascertain the work and conduct of the appellant, his entire record has been examined. He joined Government service in the year 1974 and during his 26 years' service record, he has been portrayed generally as a good officer and there is not blemish against him throughout his career spread over quarter of a century. The fact that the Government of late, realized that 'censure' of warning was a penalty of lowest order, as such, it should not be allowed to stand in the way of move-over, shows that the officer of this type who possesses good service record ought not to have been deprived of his legitimate due.

7. Even otherwise, it is now well settled that penalty of 'censure' should not be allowed to stand in the way of promotion or selection grade etc. Reference in this connection tray be made to 1991 SCMR 1637 where this principle has been affirmed. Moreover, Full Bench of this Tribunal has unequivocally held while deciding Appeal No.473 of 1992 as under:-- "Even a minor punishment is not allowed to stand in the way of promotion of a civil servant. We, therefore, do not consider that such an insignificant adverse entry in the appellant's confidential record should be allowed to block the grant of selection grade to him who, we understand, has since retired from service. It is accordingly directed that his case for grant of selection grade shall be placed before the appropriate selection/competent authorities for reconsideration. We are sure that this time they would be a little more considerate."

8. In this view of the matter, it is clear that refusal of Government to grant move-over to the appellant w.e.f 1-12-1988 had no legal justification.

9. Appeal is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is set aside. There shall no orders as to cost. H.B.T./5/Pb. (Sr. Trib) Appeal accepted.