1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑Riasat Ali Virk has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala, Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore Division Lahore and Director‑General, Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 17th November, 1981, 19th April, 1982 and 16th June, 1982 be set aside and full benefits of pay and allowances for the intervening period be allowed to be paid to the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Riasat Ali Virk, Excise and Taxation Inspector, Incharge of the Nishat Cinema Muridke, District Sheikhupura was charge‑sheeted on four irregularities and the reply to the charge‑sheet was submitted by the appellant on 8th February, 1981. An inquiry was got conducted through Ch. Muhammad Jamil, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala, who gave the report of his find ings on 13th September, 1981. Charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not proved, only charge No. 3 stood partly proved against the appellant. On receipt of the enquiry report the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice, vide Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala (Authorised Officer) order, dated 5th November, 1981. The appellant was also beard in person by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala on 14th November, 1981. The appellant was found guilty of misconduct and penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without accumulative effect was imposed, vide order dated 17th November, 1981 of Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala. The appellant made an appeal to Director Excise and Taxation, Lahore Division, Lahore which was rejected, vide order dated 19th April, 1982. The appellant made another appeal to the Director‑General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore which was disposed of, vide order dated 16th tune, 1982. Hence ibis appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney has raised legal objections on this appeal but these objections were not pressed too much on the plea that this is a case of imposing of minor penalty, hence the case be argued and considered on merits.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer Ch. Muhammad Jamil, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala. It was pointed out by him that out of four charges included in the charge‑sheet, charges Nos. 1, 2 & 4 could not be proved, only charge No. 3 was partly proved by the Enquiry Officer. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge proved also does not involve the appellant in any sort of evasion, as alleged 16 tickets were duly entered in E. D. 4 and also in the tax consump tion register and the tax was thus duly paid by the management. Only shortcoming detected by the Inspecting Officer was that the management could not affix entertainment duty stamps on the spectator portion by mistake and thus the irregularity detected was of a minor nature which was ignorable. It was concluded by the learned counsel for the appellant as the tax was duly paid and was entered in tax register and hence the punishment awarded to the appellant was unjustified and the impugned orders therefore, be set aside.

6. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that according to the enquiry report, the appellant could not account for non‑affixation of entertainment duty stamps on 16 admission tickets. Thus, his control over the cinema was quite loose. It was his duty to stop evasion of the entertainment duty at Nishat Cinema, Muridke totally, but the appellant had failed in this respect. Thus, he was punished correctly and lawfully.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the enquiry report and other documents so attached with the appeal. We have also gone carefully through the para-wise comments on this appeal submitted by the respondents. It is clear from the enquiry report that though the appellant was charge‑sheeted on four charges but charges Nos. 1, 2 & 4 could not be proved, only charge No. 3 was proved; that too partly. This partly proved charge does not involve the appellant in any sort of evasion, as alleged 16 tickets were duly entered in E. D. 4 and also in the tax consumption register and tar was thus duly paid by the management. The only shortcoming detected by the Inspecting Officer was that the management could not affix entertain ment duty stamps on the spectator portion by mistake and the irregularity detected was of a minor nature. We have considered this case very care fully and have also gone through the charges levelled against the appellant and the charge partly proved against him. It is clear from the enquiry report that the irregularity detected and proved against the appellant is of a very minor nature, as no evasion of any short has been involved and the 16 tickets so detected were duly entered in E. D. 4 and also in the tax consumption register and the tax duty was fully paid. On perusal of the record, we have satisfied ourselves that there was no connivance of the appellant and there has been no evasion of any sort and the tax was duly paid by the management. Hence, the irregularity detected was of a very minor nature and the punishment so awarded is not in consonance with the fault of the appellant. We consider that the punishment so awarded is harsh.

8. Keeping the above facts and analysis in view, we direct that the punishment be modified and varied as `censure' instead of stoppage of two annual increments. The impugned orders are directed to be modified to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs. M. I. Appeal accepted.