1984 PLP (S (PLC(CS))

Rafique Ahmad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Lahore, Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Project Circle, Lahore and Chief Engineer, Punjab Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 14th October, 1980, 19th January, 1982 and 24th May, be set aside. It has also been prayed that the appellant be reinstated in service with full benefits of pay w. e. f. 14th October, 1980, and cost of appeal be also awarded to the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Rafique Ahmad, ex -Stenographer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Lahore, was suspended on 14th October, 1980, by respondent No. 1, on account of disobedience of order of his superior. He was also charge‑sheeted by Sh. Aftab Ahmad, Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Circle Lahore, vide his order dated 15th October, 1980. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Qureshi, X. E. N. was appointed ac Enquiry Officer (Annexure `E'). Appellant submitted reply on 15th November, 1980, wherein he denied the allegation of dis obedience of orders of his superior. A subsequent charge‑sheet was also served upon the appellant by Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khokhar, Superinten ding Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Project Circle, Lahore, vide his order dated 29th August, 1981. A reply was submitted by the appellant on 22nd September, 1981. As the suspension period of the appellant was being continued indefinitely, the appellant made a detailed appeal dated 20th October, 1981, to the Appellate Authority viz. respondent No.

3. The appellant had also raised serious objections for proceedings held by Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Project Circle, Lahore. In the meanwhile a show‑cause notice dated 5th January, 1982, on the basis of inquiry report, submit ted by the Enquiry Officer, was served upon the appellant by the Superin tending Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Project Circle, Lahore. The respondent No. 2, after considering the replies given by the appellant as well as inquiry report, ordered the compulsory retirement of the appellant w. e. f. 14th January, 1982, vide his order dated 19th January, 1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore, which has been rejected vide order dated 24th May, 1982. Hence the appeal.

4. I have heard the parties and have also carefully scrutinized the record of this case.

5. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and after consultation of the record minutely, I have reached the conclusion that the appellant has committed a fault of disobeying the order of his superior but this fault was not of that extent which demanded extreme penalty of compulsory retirement of the appellant, especially keeping in view the personal prejudice alleged by the appellant against the Superintending Engineer concerned, against whom misbehaviour had been attributed. From the perusal of the record, an impression is created that Superintending Engineer against whom the appellant has been alleged to disobey his order, was also harsh in dealing with the appellant and treating him in a proper manner. I have scrutinized the service history of the appellant, as well, to arrive at a definite conclusion. The appellant joined service on 3rd October, 1959, as a Tracer. He was appointed as a Steno‑typist on 8th May, 1964. Promoted as Stenographer on 16th January, 1965. Posted as Head Clerk on 17th March, 1966 and then continued working against equivalent posts of Head Assistant/ Stenographer till 9th July, 1970, when he was transferred from Quetta and posted as Stenographer in Rawalpindi Circle. His service career from 9th July, 1970 till the date of his suspen sion viz. 14th October, 1980, in the Department has been excellent. I have studied the A. C. Rs. for the years 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978 and 1979. These, are the only A. C. Rs. available on the record for the period from the year 1970 to 1980. All these A. C. Rs. speak of his good work and conduct. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant who had such a good service career throughout his service, would adopt such an unfortu nate attitude, unless he was unduly treated harshly by his superior. With the above observations, I feel that the punishment so awarded to the appellant is not in consonance with the guilt on his part.

6. Keeping the above facts in view, the appeal of the appellant is accepted. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. The punishment is modified/varied to the extent indicated below :‑ (1) Censure. (2) Stoppage of 2 annual increments without future effect. (3) The period of suspension from 14th October, 1980 as well as the period for which the appellant remained out of service, till the date of his reinstatement be treated as leave of the kind due. The impugned orders are modified to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. M.I Order accordingly.