2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Rana Muhammad Yasin District Attorney and Khalid Siddique for Respondents No.3. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 2003. The appeal assails the impugned order dated 14‑10‑2002 and also the final impugned order dated 30‑4‑2003 vide which the appellant was awarded the penalty of stoppage of promotion for a specific period.

2. As per facts relevant to the present case, the appellant was proceeded against under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and served with a show‑cause notice containing allegations that while working as Excise and Taxation Officer he was found inefficient as he had not been able to achieve the total demand of Rs.140.317 million recoverable on account of property tax during the financial year including arrears. It was also alleged that recovery calculated to just 10% of the target. It was further alleged that the appellant had not been able to "push up" his subordinates to improve recovery position upto March 2002. The appellant replied to the show‑cause notice. However, his reply was not considered satisfactory and he was awarded punishment on account of alleged inefficiency.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that very unrealistic targets of recovery under the new scheme of property tax (land based) were fixed in Zone‑II (Shahadra etc.) where there lived lower middle class people. It is further stated that the appellant had brought this situation to the notice of the Director, E&T Lahore in monthly meetings, who took up the matter with Executive District Officer (Revenue) and consequently the demand was decreased upto 37 % and 46 % for April and May 2002 respectively and as a result thereof recovery position improved. It is further maintained that target/demand was hypothetical and proved unrealistic and the same was ultimately reduced as pointed out by the appellant. It is next maintained that not only the zone in which the appellant was posted even other zones in the region also could not achieve the targets, whereas disciplinary proceedings were started against the appellant only and this which was discrimination. It is further stated that even otherwise it was wrong to declare the appellant inefficient on the basis of receipts upto March‑April because most of the owners of property make payment of tax in last two months of the financial year. It is also pointed out that the appellant was victimized through summary proceedings as no regular inquiry was held and the appellant was not given the opportunity to put up a detailed defence.

4. The appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is maintained on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was inefficient as he had not been able to make recovery of the arrears of property tax and he criticized the new system of property tax. It is also stated on behalf of the respondents that the appellant 'was proceeded against because compared with other zones, his performance was poor and there being sufficient evidence on record regarding his inefficiency, it was not considered necessary to hold a regular inquiry, however, the appellant was given the opportunity of personal hearing, which he availed, but his explanation was not considered satisfactory and he was awarded the punishment in accordance with rules.

5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that the fact is admitted by the respondents that the estimated recovery‑demand for the area where the appellant was posted was unrealistic aid for this reasons recovery targets could not be achieved: Thereafter, demand was reasonably decreased in April and then in May 2002. This fact supports the contention of the appellant that he had already brought the situation to the notice of the concerned authority, but no action was taken and finally, his views were accepted and the demand was decreased. I also find that contention of the appellant was indirectly accepted by the appellate authority when the punishment of stoppage of promotion was reduced from three years to six months. The departmental representative appearing on behalf of the department also candidly admits that the original estimation of demand was rather inflated and for this reason decrease was ordered at later stage. I also agree with the appellant that people usually pay property tax towards end of a financial year and the pace of recovery remains slow in the preceding months and on the basis of figures during those months, no realistic assessment of achievement of recovery targets could be made. Therefore, considering all relevant facts of the case, appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. H.B.T./2/PST Appeal accepted.