2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).

The appeal is directed against the impugned order, dated 7-7-2001 and the appellate order dated 5-3-2003.

2. Facts relevant to the present appeal arc that the appellant who is Sub-Inspector in Cooperative Department received a show-cause notice dated 12-2-2000 containing the allegations that he was beneficiary of loan outstanding against one cooperative thrift and credit society in District Khanewal. Inquiry was held. The allegations of being beneficiary of loan of Rs.1,25,000 were found to have been proved. Accordingly, the appellant was awarded the punishment of reduction in pay to the initial stage of pay scale-6 through the impugned orders under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that inquiry was not properly held and the appellant was not given full opportunity to defend himself. It is also maintained that the appellant had only acted in his official capacity in the sanction of loan to a Cooperative Society and that he was not beneficiary of the said loan in any manner. It is also stated that the impugned orders were passed against the appellant out of mala fide. It is further averred that there was no punishment of reduction in pay scale to minimum stage of scale provided under the rules and that when the impugned orders were illegal, the same were liable to be set aside and the appellant deserved to be granted full relief. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had not caused any loss to the Government and that the allegations were proved only from some oral statements of persons, who were against the appellant for their own reasons.

4. The appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is maintained on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was found to be beneficiary of a loan, which was outstanding against the Cooperative Society, and who had defaulted in the repayment of loan. It is further maintained that inquiry was properly held and the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself, but he failed to prove himself innocent. It is also pointed out by the respondents that the appellant was also given the opportunity to defend himself by the authority and also by the appellate authority, but he failed to rebut the allegations.

5. I have considered the contentions from both sides. I find that a detailed and comprehensive inquiry was held into allegations against the appellant, who had misused his official position by being beneficiary of loan, which was issued in the name of Cooperative Society, whereas the actual beneficiary was the appellant himself. Later on, the appellant made no effort for the recovery/repayment of the loan and the fact' was proved in the course of inquiry that default was also because of the attitude of the appellant. The appellant was also given every opportunity to defend himself in the course of inquiry proceedings by the authority and by the appellate authority. The appellant, therefore, cannot say that he was condemned unheard. However, the punishment awarded to the appellant is not found in accordance with law. The pay of the appellant could not have been reduced to the initial stage of pay scale because as, per provisions of relevant E&D Rules, reduction in pay could be made to a lower stage and not to the minimum of the pay scale. Therefore, considering this aspect of the case, appeal is partly accepted to the extent that the punishment of reduction in pay scale to the minimum/initial stage of pay scale shall stand converted into that of reduction in time scale by one stage. Consequently, impugned order shall stand modified. H.B.T./19/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.