1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant has submitted a statement in writing which is also signed by her counsel, stating therein that she does not press the appeal on merits and instead prays for reduction in punishment. She has given a number of reasons in support of her prayer. The appellant was serving as a Senior Clerk in the Directorate of Manpower Research and Planning Cell, when disciplinary action was initiated against her. Two main charges levelled against the appellant are: first, that she remained absent from duty un-authorisedly from 4-5-1983 to 10-7-1983; second, that she left for India without obtaining ex-Pakistan leave. She was found guilty of these charges and was awarded major penalty of removal from service. After availing departmental remedy she approached this Tribunal in appeal. By order dated 30-9-1986 her appeal was allowed and the impugned order of her removal dated 7-1-1985 was set aside. However, the case was remanded back to the Authorized Officer concerned with a direction that Enquiry Officer be appointed to hold a detailed enquiry into the charges against the appellant in accordance with the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. In compliance with the Tribunal's above order the necessary departmental proceedings were taken out against the appellant and in result she was once again awarded punishment, this time major penalty of dismissal from service. Being dissatisfied with the order of her dismissal, the appellant went in departmental appeal where upon the penalty of dismissal was reduced and earlier penalty of removal was. restored. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal, Since the appellant and her counsel have not pressed the appeal on merits, it is not necessary to go into the detailed discussion of the merits of the case. However, we have to consider the appellant's prayer for reduction of the penalty imposed upon her. We have given our best thought to the grounds on which the appellant has sought the desired relief. The record shows that the appellant made two applications one after the other for grant of leave on medical grounds. In support of her applications she enclosed medical certificates, of course not of the authorized medical officer. Furthermore, she proceeded on leave in anticipation of the sanction thereof. It is also true that she failed to get the medical certificates countersigned by the authorized medical Superintendent/ Civil Surgeon as per direction of the sanctioning authority. The appellant even went to India without obtaining ex -Pakistan leave. Keeping these charges in view, we have to determine if the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the appellant, is severe and needs to be reduced. It may not be overlooked that the appellant being a young girl was working in the male-dominated environment in the Directorate. The disciplinary action having begun in May, 1983 the appellant has already suffered too much as she has been dragged for all these years at-heavy cost both in terms of monetary loss and moral setback. For most of the this period she was under suspension and therefore she received not more than one third of her emoluments. Since her' conviction is being maintained, she is unlikely to receive the unpaid portion of the emoluments for entire period of suspension. It has also come to our notice that during the pendency of the case of disciplinary action, the appellant's juniors were promoted and she was ignored. As for ex-Pakistan leave the appellant has state that she was unaware that apart from ordinary leave she had to obtain separate leave for going outside Pakistan. Of course ignorance of law is no excuse, yet we cannot overlook that many people labour under misapprehension that once they have taken ordinary leave they could avail it even for going abroad. As has been admitted by departmental representative Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad, Assistant Director who is present in Court, the appellant has a clean service record for over ten years. She is said to be the only earning member of her large family, comprising her, mother, three younger brother's and three younger sisters beside the appellant herself. The learned A.A.G. also does not seriously oppose the prayer for reduction of the penalty. For above reasons we are of the view that the extreme penalty of removal from service is too severe and is uncalled for in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, we reduce the penalty of removal, from service to that of withholding of three annual increments without cumulative effect. Subject to this modification in the penalty awarded to the appellant, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. S.Q./153/Sr. S Penalty reduced.