2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Appellant. Muhammad Boota, SC/DR for Respondent No.3 Rana Safdar Ali Asif, District Attorney. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2002. The appellant was proceeded against on the ground that while working as Junior Clerk he has committed misconduct by issuing bogus certificate in favour of a student and by forging record relevant to his date of birth in the school record as well as documents. Subsequently he was visited with the major penalty of reduction in time scale to the initial stage on 1‑9‑2000: He filed departmental, appeal which was not decided within the statutory period.

2. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the first place allegations were not maintainable against the appellant because no direct evidence was available and no proper enquiry was held and some of the witnesses had also given witness in favour of the appellant. It is further maintained that the benefit of change of date of birth in record could not go to the appellant because in Matriculation Certificate it remained unchanged, and the date of birth in Matric Certificate is considered vital. It is also maintained that appellant had been victimised because of personal bias of one of the respondents who had managed his transfer to far off place. It is further maintained that under the Delegation of Power Rules, the appellant could not be imposed upon the penalty by the Director because the appellant belonged to the district cadre. It is also argued that appellant had not been given full opportunity to defend his cause in the process of, departmental proceedings.

3. Learned District Attorney has opposed the appeal pointing out that the appellant belonged to Divisional Cadre and therefore, impugned orders had been passed by the Competent Authority. It is further maintained that a regular enquiry was held in this case and the appellant was given the full opportunity to defend his case. It is also maintained that the appellant was fully associated with the enquiry proceedings and he was also allowed to inspect the relevant record and was also provided with a copy of the enquiry report and that the major penalty had been awarded after considering all the relevant facts including the gravity of the charges levelled against him.

4. I have considered the arguments from both sides. I find force in the contention of the learned District Attorney that the appellant had been given full opportunity to defend his cause in the course of departmental proceedings. However, the penalty of reduction in pay to the maximum stage appears too extreme. Therefore, considering the facts of the case the impugned order is modified to the extent that the penalty shall stand converted into that of reduction in pay by one stage. Appeal accepted to that extent. H.B.T./100/PST Order accordingly.