1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 4‑Scope‑Disciplinary action ‑Penalty‑Quantum‑Patwari charged for inefficiency and misconduct on account of failure to complete entries in Roznamcha Waqiati for 7 days and to produce Roznamcha Karguzari at time of Inspection of Naib‑Tehsildar Allegations admitted and lapse explained due to accused being a new entrant and inexperienced‑Penalty of dismissal from service, in circumstances, altered to that of withholding of three incre ments and censure‑Intervening period treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Mumtaz Hussain v. The Executive Engineer, Highways etc. 1990 P L C (C. S.) 605 ref. MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).‑Ghulam Farid, Ex‑Patwari, Kabirwnla Sub‑Division has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 against the order dated 28th May 1981, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Kabirwala whereby he was dismissed from service: He has also prayed against the impugned order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan dated 6th Decem ber, 1981 whereby the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Kabirwala was confirmed and the appeal of the appellant rejected. In this appeal he has impleaded the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Kabirwala and the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and has prayed both the impugned orders be set aside being illegal and that he be re‑instated into service with all back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 7th April, 1981, Naib‑Tehsildar, Kabirwala reported that he had visited village Chattor Garb and the appellant being the Halqa Patwari was present there. The Naib‑Tehsil dar, also reported that on checking the record of the appellant it was found that the appellant had made not even a single entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati on 29th March, 1981 regarding the Girdawari despite the fact that the Girdawri for Rabi 1981 was being carried out. It was also observed that the Roznamcha Waqiati was blank for the period from 31st March, 1981 to 6th April, 1981. The appellant was also not able to produce he Roznamcha Karguzari before the Naib‑Tehsildar, despite his directions in this behalf. On this report the explanation of the appellant was called who submitted the same, thereby admitting the allegations levelled against him. The Assistant Commissioner/ Collector served a notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service on account of the above lapse which amounted to misconduct. The appellant submitted reply to the show‑cause notice and was heard in person by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector was not satisfied with the defence of the appellant and dismissed him from service vide his order dated 28th May, 1981. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner Multan Division, Multan which was rejected vide order dated 6th December, 1981. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record with their assistance. It has been argued that the penalty imposed upon the appellant is too harsh and does not commen surate with the nature of allegations. He has submitted that it being the first lapse on the part of an inexperienced Patwari, he does not deserve the major punishment of dismissal from service, on the charge of inefficiency. In this behalf he has relied upon 1980 P L C (C. S.)

605. It has also been argued that the Roznamcha Waqiati was blank due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant which was explained by him in his reply to show‑cause notice Annexure `D' of the appeal. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has also relied on the reply of the show‑cause notice Annexure `D' filed by the appellant and has taken us through the same. He has also submitted that the appellant has admitted that due to his inexperience, he could not complete the Roznamcha Waqiati from 31st March, 1981 to 6th April, 1981 although in fact he had carried out the Girdawari. The learned District Attorney has also submitted that the contention of the appellant that when he went to Naib‑Tehsildar he left the Roznamcha Karguzari in his office is just a lame excuse which is not acceptable. He has prayed that the appellant is not guilty of one lapse only but is guilty on three counts and does not deserve any leniency.

4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record very carefully. It is a common ground between the parties that at the time of visit of the Naib‑Tehsildar, he found the Roznamcha Waqiati blank during the period between 31st March, 1981 to 6th April, 1981 i.e. 7 days and that Roznamcha Karguzari was not produced at all. The reason advanced by the appellant in this behalf is just a lame excuse and is not plausible. It has also been admitted on behalf of the appellant that he did not enter any report on 29th March, 1981 in koznamcha Waqiati, regarding his having carried out Girdawari work in the village. In view of the admissions of the appellant and the perusal of the record, we hold that the appellant is guilty of misconduct and inefficiency.

5. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the penalty imposed upon the appellant is harsher than the gravity of the charges. Thus, we have decided to vary the penalty so awarded to the appellant. Keeping in view the facts that the appellant was a new entrant into service and the nature of charges, we convert the penalty of dismissal from service to that of withholding of three increments and censure, so we order accordingly. The appellant shall be re‑instated into service, but the period from the date of his dismissal to that of his re‑instatement shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.