1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER). ‑‑Anwar‑ul‑Haque, appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order dated 31‑3‑1984 vide which the appellant was inflicted minor penalty of withholding the increments for the period of 3 years. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal which was rejected vide letter dated 3‑9‑1984 of the Secretary, Punjab Local Government Board. The appellant has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore and Deputy Secretary (Admn.), LG & RD Department as respondents Nos.l and 2 respectively.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted as below: ‑ "That you while posted as Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Chichawatni, in or about the years 1977‑78, by abusing your official position as public servant, committed the acts of omissions and commissions, detail whereof is set out as under:‑ (i) In 189 cases, the licences/ tickets of Teh‑Bazari were transferred from the names of original holders without the sanction of the Chairman and without realizing the Transfer Fees @ Rs.200 per case and thereby caused a loss of Rs.37,800 to the Committee. (11) In 44 cases of the years 1977‑78, no Transfer‑Fee was realised and thereby caused loss of Rs.8,800 to the Committee.

2. By reasons of above you appear to be guilty of misconduct within the meaning of rule 2(d) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, and as such are liable for disciplinary action, which may entail major penalties prescribed by rule 4(b) of the said Rules.

3. You are, therefore, required to explain within 14 days of the receipt of this charge‑sheet as to why disciplinary action, as aforesaid may not be taken against you. You should also state, at the same time, whether you desire to be heard in person.

4. In case your explanation is not received within the stipulated period, it shall be presumed that you have no defence to offer or you have declined to offer the same and further action will be taken accordingly. ,

5. A statement of allegations in support of this charge‑sheet is enclosed. " The appellant pleaded not guilty in his written statement. Subsequently regular enquiry was conducted against the appellant by Iqbal Ahmad Khan Lodhi, Officer on Special Duty (Enquiries) and he found the appellant guilty in both the charges. As a result of findings the Deputy Secretary (Admn.) vide order dated 31‑3‑1984 awarded penalty of withholding increments for a period of 3 years on the appellant in the capacity of Authorised Officer. Aggrieved by this order by the appellant filed departmental appeal to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department which was rejected by the appellate authority and the appellant was communicated the result vide letter dated 3‑9‑1984 of the Secretary, Punjab Local Government Board. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the allegations against the appellant were framed on the basis of Para, (iv) of the Special Audit Report for the period from 1‑1‑1975 to 30‑6‑1976 regarding 189 cases of Teh hazari (Ticket Holders) but the appellant was posted as Chief Officer Municipal Committee, Chichawatni on 8‑6‑1976. As such the learned counsel further stated that the appellant could not be held responsible for the period preceding to his appointment. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the appellant had caused no loss to the Municipal Committee. The learned counsel for the appellant closed his arguments while stating that the enquiry report is based on conjectures and surmises.

5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that in the first instance a regular enquiry was conducted against the appellant after serving him a charge sheet and statement of allegations. The learned District Attorney added that the enquiry was conducted in a proper form and the appellant was given full chance to contest the allegations as well as cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses and full opportunity to produce his defence. The learned District Attorney concluded his arguments while stating that the allegations and charges against the appellant are well‑ rounded and are supported with record and the punishment inflicted on the appellant is also by no means harsh.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the 'earned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney. We have also consulted the record including the written objections from the respondents. In the instant case as already pointed out a full-fledged enquiry was conducted against the appellant and the appellant had sufficient opportunity to contest the same. In 189 cases as given in Audit Report (Annexure 'C' to the comments) the names of the of the Original licences/ticket‑holders were found to have been changed without sanction of the Chairman and payment of Rs.200 as fee per case. This caused financial loss amounting to Rs.37,800 to the Committee. The appellant being ex‑officio Taxation Officer was responsible to ensure the recovery of the loss. However, only Rs.8,800 were recovered of 44 cases only and the rest remained outstanding, Suailarly the Audit Report of income in the month of June, 1978 observed :hat in 44 .cases that the Khokha Shops had been transferred to other persons by the original ticket/licence‑holders without payment of Rs.200 per case (Annexure 'D' to the comments) but only in 16 cases (Annexure 'E' to the comments) the recovery amounting to Rs.3,200 was mentioned whereas remaining 28 cases for the amount of Rs 5,r,a00 were outstanding due to fault of the appellant in capacity of ex-Officio Taxation Officer. Besides that action against the remaining officers at fault is also pending.

7. Hence we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order except to reduce the penalty of withholding of increments for 3 years imposed upon the appellant to withholding the increment for one year. A.E./53/Sr.P Order accordingly