1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Muhammad Sharif Awan, section officer, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab, through the Additional Secretary (Co-ord), P & D. Department, Lahore and Additional Chief Secretary, S.G.A. & I Department, Govern ment of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 17th March, 1982 and final order, dated 24th January, 1983 be set aside and the displeasure conveyed to him be quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Section Officer Exp. (Health) Finance Department at the time of signing the audit copy, did not verify whether the scheme has been revised in accordance with the decision of the P.D.W.P. meeting, dated 23rd August, 1980. The Government vide its confidential letter, dated 17th March, 1982 signed by Mr. Javed Bukhari, Additional Secretary (Co-ord), Planning and Develop ment Department, informed the appellant that he has negligently signed the audit copy of the administrative approval of the scheme without requiring the Health Department to revise the scheme in accordance with the decision of the P.D.W.P., dated 23rd August, 1980 and also conveyed the displeasure of the Government which was placed in the A.C.R. File of the appellant. The appellant after receiving the said letter, requested the Additional Secretary (Co-ord) Planning and Development to permit him to consult the relevant record in the Finance Department and then to make a repre sentation. However, a representation was filed by the appellant on 12th April, 1982 which has been placed on the record as Annexure `C'. Despite his representation in which he defended himself in an elaborate manner, the Government decided to turn down the same and informed him of its decision vide letter, dated 24th January, 1983. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. The appellant has laid stress on the letter of the Governor which he has placed on the record as well as audit copy signed by him and has vehemently argued that the audit copy so assigned was fully consistent with the aforesaid decision of the P.D.W.P. meeting held on 23rd August, 1980 and had reproduced the said decision in his appeal, which is as under "17. The scheme was approved at a cost of Rs. 100 lacs with a clear directive that only essential equipment would be purchased, and no sophisticated n3achine would be acquired. It was further directed that the cost of Rs. 100 lacs should also include the local currency requirements." It has been submitted that in accordance with the aforementioned decision there is no inconsistency with the decision of the audit copy, there fore, the stand of the Government arranging displeasure and subsequently placing it on the A.C. R. of the appellant .was highly unjustified. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has argued that in the P.D.W.P. Meeting held on 23rd August, 1980, it was indicated that the scheme was approved at a cost of Rs. 100 lacs with a clear directive that only essential equipment would be purchased and no sophisticated machine would be acquired. According to the learned District Attorney it was directed that the cost of Rs. 100 lacs should also include the local currency requirements. It has been urged that the appellant who was then Section officer Exp. (Health), Finance Department had to get the scheme revised in view of the positive- decision of the P.D.W.P., but he instead did not verify whether the scheme has been revised in accordance with the said decision and forwarded the same. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that although the appellant took up the matter and . got the scheme revised yet this act of negligence on the part of the appellant, could have resulted into colossal loss to the Government and in a way it was a defiance of the Governor's order. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have seen the scheme and the minutes of the P.D.W.P. meeting, dated 23rd August, 1980, and thus cannot repel the argument of the learned District Attorney that the appellant did commit a serious lapse while signing the audit copy without getting it revised as it was so specifically indicated in the decision of the said meeting of the P.D.W.P. 8. In view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the well-considered decision of the Government and dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal dismissed.