1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Tausif.Ahmad, Assistant Collector (Law), Rawalpindi, D.R. Date of hearing: 20th October, 1994. MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER): ‑‑The appellant, Sher Bahadur, Sepoy, in the Office of Collectorate of Customs, CE&ST, Rawalpindi, has come in appeal against the impugned order dated 15‑6‑1994, whereby he was removed from service. He made a departmental appeal on 26‑6‑1994 against the impugned order which was rejected by the appellate authority on 25‑7‑1994. He then came to the Tribunal with the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on 23‑8‑1994 with the following prayer: "That the record of the case may‑ be summoned and both the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits. If the learned Tribunal comes to its own conclusion that some fault is attributable to the appellant he may be awarded the most minor penalty in any case less than that awarded to the Deputy Superintendent."

2. The case of the appellant is that the Collector of Customs paid a surprise visit to the Coca‑Cola Factory at about 14‑30 hours and found Deputy Superintendent and sepoy absent from duty. They were charge‑sheeted and disciplinary proceedings were conducted against both of them under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and a major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the appellant with effect from 15‑6‑1994.

3. The appellant has pleaded that his Officer‑in‑Charge with whom he was attached was given major penalty of stoppage of three increments on the same charge and later on he was exonerated by his competent authority but he (appellant) being a poor sepoy, his competent authority did not accept his departmental appeal.

4. The departmental representative appeared on behalf of respondents has stated that during the visit of Collector of Customs, the appellant was found absent from his duties. The inquiry was conducted against him according to the rules and he was also afforded full opportunity of personal hearing. The appellant was found guilty and a major penalty of removal was imposed upon him. He has further stated that their department is a revenue department and the slightest negligence by the functionaries can effect the revenue earning of the Government and as such strict action was taken against the appellant.

5. We have heard the arguments advanced by both sides and perused the relevant record.. The departmental representative had admitted that the appellants co‑accused i.e. Deputy Superintendent who was also charge‑sheeted on the same charge has been exonerated on his appeal by the competent authority i.e. Chairman, Central Board of Revenue. We feel that when under the same charge the officer with whom the appellant was attached has been exonerated by the competent Authority whereas the major punishment of ',I removal from service awarded to the poor sepoy (appellant) is still in force. We are of the view that as the co‑accused of the appellant has been exonerated, the appellant also deserves the same treatment as such we set aside the order of the Collector dated 15‑6‑1994 and reinstate the appellant into service with all back benefits and that he will be considered as he has not been removed from A service from 15‑6‑1994. The appeal is accepted accordingly with no order as to costs. H.B.T./1028/Sr.F Appeal accepted.