2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal calls in question judgment, dated 16th October, 2003 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby on accepting the appeal of respondent he has been reinstated in the service.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent being Accounts Assistant, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab was proceeded against departmentally on stated allegation of making purchase of veterinary equipment at high prices resulting in excess payment to the contractors. Besides the respondent, two other officers of the same department were also charged for identical allegation. The Inquiry Officer in the case of respondent did not make specific recommendations against him concerning proving of allegation or otherwise. However, the Authorised Officer recommended for imposition of minor penalty of withholding of two increments against respondents. Relevant contents of said recommendations are reproduced herein-below:‑. "(7) Mr. Masood Ahmad, Accounts Assistant. Mr. Masood Ahmad took the plea that he was an Accounts Assistant and was not regular member of the Purchase Committee. He had been performing his duties as per orders of the Officers but not involved at any decision‑taking level. As such he has not played any part in making purchases at higher prices and by passing procurement guidelines as prescribed by the Asian Development Bank. Thus the only charge established against him is his failure to deduct Income‑tax from the bills of the contractors/suppliers. According, it is proposed that minor penalty of withholding of two increments/may be imposed on him. " The competent authority, however, did not agree with the above recommendations of Authorised Officer as such vide order, dated 12th December, 2002 imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon him and recovery of Rs.33,

383. In review this order was maintained on 28th February, 2003 by the competent authority. Being dissatisfied from the said order, respondent preferred appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal being No.616 of 2003 which has been accepted by means of impugned order, dated 16th October, 2003. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the impugned order as well as available record particular/inquiry report and recommendations made by the Authorised Officer Relevant para. therefrom has already been reproduced hereinabove. It may be noted that as it has been pointed out hereinabove that Inquiry Officer in his report has not specifically stated about the involvement of the respondent, therefore, no recommendation has been made by him but the Authorised Officer recommended only minor, penalty for the reasons that the respondent being in capacity of Accounts Assistant failed to deduct income‑tax from the contractors. Keeping both the documents in juxtaposition, inference can safely be drawn that as far as the allegations which were levelled against the respondent in show‑cause notice are .concerned, they have not been proved. Besides, learned Chairman of the Service Tribunal had also inquired from the Section Officer appeared before it and on the basis of same concluded that he is not involved in the purchase of veterinary equipment at high prices resulting in excess payment to the contractors. Since findings recorded by the Chairman are in consonance with the report of Inquiry Officer as well as recommendations of the Authorised Officer who had also stated that he is not involved in the purchase of veterinary equipment at high prices, therefore, no illegality had been committed by the learned Chairman of the Service Tribunal in accepting the appeal for the detailed and cogent reasons, which have been mentioned in the impugned: judgment, as such‑ we are of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal. Thus for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition as such same is dismissed and leave declined. M.H./C‑2/S Petition dismissed.