1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Dr. A.Q. QAZI (MEMBER).‑‑The above appeal was disposed of by a short order of this Tribunal, dated 11‑3‑1987 by which major penalty of removal was substituted by minor penalty of stoppage of three increments inflicted on the appellant. Briefly to state the case history, the appellant was a Telephone Operator Grade‑5 at Liaquat Medical College Hospital, Jamshoro. It appears that he was appointed on 26‑7‑1984. It is stated by the appellant that one night he was engaged in some talk with a group of rowdy students who had trespassed the security measures of the main gate and had succeeded to enter the Telephone Exchange. It is further stated that the students wanted to make some telephone calls from the Telephone Exchange and that he was trying to persuade them to leave the Exchange. While they were engaged in the Exchange, the Medical Superintendent of the hospital suddenly happened to visit the Exchange. It is further averred by the appellant that it was not possible for him to throw out these rowdy students from Telephone Exchange who could assault and harm him. It is his plea that the students threatened him of the dire consequences if they were not allowed to make the desired telephone calls. Mr. Hamid Ali further insists in his appeal that while the students were inside the Exchange, he had explained this situation to the Medical Superintendent. To the surprise of the appellant the Superintendent of the Hospital served a show‑cause notice No. LMCH/(Estt)/2281, dated 26‑1‑1985 wherein allegations of misconduct were levelled against him and he was required to show cause as to why major penalty of removal should not be imposed upon him. He was further called upon to reply within a period of 10 days to which he replied on 5‑2‑1985. He was removed from service vide Order No. LMCH/Estt/‑3965/68, dated 17‑2‑1985. He appealed to the Secretary Health on 7‑3‑1985 and filed a service appeal on 16‑6‑1985 refuting all allegations of 'misconduct'. In the written statement submitted by the Government on behalf of respondents, it is replied that the Medical Superintendent visited the Exchange on the night of 22‑1‑1985 and found the appellant sitting in the company of three students and gossipping in the premises of the Exchange at odd hour of 00.00 at night. He found that the students had blankets, bed-sheets and other clothes with them and, according to the Superintendent, obviously for the purpose of retiring for the night. It is the report of the Medical Superintendent that the appellant was always engaged in such activities even earlier. It is his assertion that he has been involved in obnoxious activities not befitting a Government servant. Professor Dr. Irshad Moriani refers to his letter bearing No. LMCH/(Estt)‑9002/07, dated 6‑5‑1984 and to an earlier charge‑sheet bearing No. LMCH/(Estt) 15735 dated 11th August, 1984. The earlier charge‑sheet indicates that the appellant, apart from lodging students in the exchange room was guilty of making obnoxious calls to the nursing staff and was engaged in blackmail of the lady staff of the hospital. It is further added that the latest charge‑sheet on this subject was issued to him on 11‑8‑1984 and enquiry was also conducted against him and he was found guilty. However, the Department condoned his misbehaviour and awarded a minor penalty of censure on 16‑9‑1984. It is the view of the learned Medical Superintendent that he is a persona non grata and is an incorrigible character. We have examined thoroughly the pleas of the parties and also examined the relevant material available on the record. It is established beyond any doubt that the appellant Hamid Ali has been involved in activities which are certainly unbecoming for a civil servant by all definitions. We cannot accept his frivolous averment that he was trying to persuade the students to leave the exchange. If it were so there should have been some hard talk or a wild exchange of words while the Medical Superintendent visited the Exchange. On the contrary it was all well at 00.00 hours at night and the operator Mr. Hamid Ali was engaged in a very pleasant gossip with the students who were carrying the sleeping material. We are satisfied beyond any doubt that Mr. Hamid Ali is responsible for commission of an act of 'misconduct' within the meaning of Rule 2, sub‑rule (4) of the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules of 1973. We do not find any circumstantial evidence so as not to believe the Medical Superintendent and cannot find cogent reason to believe if any mala fides existed against the appellant who is a Grade‑5 Operator. We have heard the counsel of both the parties with patience and concentration. Mr. M. Bashir Awan the learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits of the case. His only contention is that awarded penalty of removal is very severe as compared to the quantum of 'misconduct' committed. Mr. M. Bashir Awan the learned counsel has accordingly prayed that the penalty be reduced to meet ends of justice. We have given a careful thought to this prayer as well. We feel that there is a small room for showing some leniency in respect of the quantum of punishment. Though we hold Mr. Hamid Ali as guilty of the 'misconduct' committed, but yet we feel that the punishment of removal inflicted is harsh for the above act of 'misconduct' committed. We therefore reduce the penalty and substitute it accordingly. It is for these reasons in respect of facts and law that the short order was passed on 11‑3‑1987 which reads as under: "The appellant and his counsel Mr. Bashir Awan present. Mr. Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Government counsel is also present. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits. He however, prays for reduction in penalty. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we reduce the penalty to stoppage of three increments, one falling due on 1‑12‑1985, second on 1‑12‑1986 and third on 1‑12‑1987 without cumulative effect. Subject to the modification of the penalty as aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. Detailed reasons to follow. A.E./104/Sr.S. Penalty reduced.