1995SCMR1214 (PLP)

‑‑‑Art 212 (3)‑‑‑Reduction to lower grade‑‑‑‑Negligence in performance of duty‑‑‑Reduction of civil servant to lower grade and recovery of specified amount from him‑‑‑Service Tribunal setting aside order regarding recovery of specified amount altered order of reduction to lower grade to order reducing him to lower stage in his time scale for period of two years from the date of passing of the order‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal considering all aspects involved in the case had come to conclusion that circumstances had created doubt in their minds, the benefit of which should go to civil servant and thus, it set aside only that portion of the order which related to recovery of specified amount‑‑‑No fault was pointed out in the decision of Service Tribunal‑‑‑Civil servant having not filed any appeal against his reduction in rank, benefit of doubt was not further extended to him. Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Bashir Kiyani, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan; Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1995. MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22‑6‑1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad.

2. Facts of the case are that the respondent was Record Keeper and Incharge of Maps. The maps were found short. A Board was constituted in respect of the same. Its report was in positive. Departmental Inquiry Committee was appointed who found the maps short and respondent Abdul Hamid to be negligent in performance of his duty. Show‑cause notice was issued to him accordingly. On 15‑6‑1993 he was reduced to lower grade and recovery of Rs.77,890 was also ordered to be made from him. He filed departmental appeal, but of no avail. The respondent ailed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The Tribunal, vide para. 7 of its judgment, set aside the order regarding recovery of Rs.77,

890. He was reduced to lower stage in his time scale for a period of two years from the date of passing of the order i.e. 15‑6‑1993. Against the abovesaid order of the Service Tribunal the Government has come before this Court through this petition.

3. We have heard Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General, with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate‑on‑Record, for the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Bashir Kiyani, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record, for the respondent.

4. We have gone through the impugned order. The Service Tribunal has considered all the facts involved in the case. In para. 7 of its judgment the Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that the circumstances create doubt in their minds and extended benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent. But, however, set aside only the order regarding recovery of Rs.77,

890. We do not find any fault with its such decision. However, the respondent has not filed any appeal against the reduction of his rank, we, therefore, cannot extend any further benefit in his favour. Under the circumstances we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed accordingly. AA./G‑505/S Leave refused.