1989 PLP 1394 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a serving Tehsildar in the Revenue Department of the Government of Punjab seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 7‑12‑1982. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for certain financial irregularities noticed in the recovery of arrears of land revenue and the preparation of statement of accounts relating thereto. Not only the petitioner but others in the hierarchy were also proceeded against. At first the punishment of reversion to the next lower job of Naib Tehsildar was ordered but the Full Board altered it to the punishment of stoppage of annual increment. The Tribunal re‑examined the case of the appellant and gave him no relief. Hence this petition. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner was in no way different from that of Muhammad Masood Shaukat, similarly charged and similarly punished, but given relief by the Tribunal. On merits it is contended that no fault could be found and he was punished without fault. Another defect, the clerical one, pointed out is that the Commissioner as the authorised officer, invoked Rule 6(2) of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules and proceeded to exercise powers under Rule 6(3) which could not be justified on the facts of the case. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the Tribunal observed as follows:‑ "While taking the case of Mumtaz Ahmad Chaudhry we do not find any justification to interfere with the punishment so awarded to him as he has failed to give any cogent reason in his defence and we also do not find extenuating circumstances in his favour so as to consider his case at par with that of Muhammad Masud Shaukat. His case has been fully commented upon by the Full Board of Revenue in its judgment to which no exception can be taken." The case of Muhammad Masud Shaukat was distinguished by observing as follows:‑ "In case of Muhammad Masud Shaukat, we have no hesitation to observe that his contention so mentioned by the Full Board in para.7 of their judgment relating to the denial of signing the disputed statement, has not been either controverted or commented upon in the concluding para of their judgment. There is of course a passing reference in para. 10 of the judgment that all the appellants are guilty of the lapse of signing the incorrect statements. In view of the above, we vary the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, against Muhammad Masud Shaukat appellant, to that of Censure, to bring him at par with the case of Riaz Ahmad. This officer has since retired and if the said punishment is maintained he is likely to suffer a recurring monetary loss during his lifetime." As regards the third objection the very recital shows that the procedure invoked for proceeding against the Petitioner was the one prescribed in Rule 6(3) and not Rule 6(2). The opening words of the Charge‑sheet read as follows:‑ "In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Rule 6(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 and after going through the circumstances of the case, I have arrived at the conclusion that without holding a regular departmental enquiry against you, the procedure laid down under rule 6(3) of the rules should be adopted. The following allegations are, therefore, made known to you." All these grounds have been adequately dealt with by the Tribunal and there is no question of law arising which may require further examination. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused. M.A.K./M‑889/S Leave refused