1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑‑Mr. Muhammad Saeed Gurchani has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order of the full Board, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dated 27‑10‑1981 be set aside and the appellant be exonerated of the charge.

3. The facts of the case are that Mr. Muhammad Saeed Gurchani, the appellant was working a Tehsildar Vehari in the year 1978. A complaint was lodged before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, that the appellant had not been performing his duties properly and certain mutations decided by him had not been consigned to the Tehsil office. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan, was deputed to look into the allegations and to send his report. He made a surprise visit to the office of the Tehsildar Vehari on 20‑11‑1978 and found, 85 decided mutations which were not consigned to the Teshil office. The appellant was called upon to explain his position. In reply he stated that he had consigned the mutations in question with the office Kanungo since long who had placed them in a safe and the same also stood entered in the receipt register of mutations. On a thorough probe it was found that above mentioned register of mutations had been got prepared subsequently, in order to get out of the position, the appellant found himself in. He was, therefore, charge‑sheeted by the Commissioner Mutlan, being the Authorised Officer. The register maintained for consignment of decided mutations was closed by the A.D.C. (Consolidation), Multan by signing at the end, at the time he visited Tehsil office Vehari. During the inquiry, this register was not produced. Instead, another register was prepared showing consignment of decided mutations. It was not put to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) during the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer was, therefore, directed to record further evidence. During re‑inquiry, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) Multan in his statement denied having seen earlier the register shown to him. It is evident that after the raid, a new consignment register had been fabricated in order to create evidence in favour of the appellant. Both the charges were proved against the appellant. The Commissioner, Multan Division being the Authorised Officer forwarded the case to the 'Authority' alongwith necessary material/ documents in respect of inquiry for necessary action. The Authority, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, after giving full consideration to the matter, passed his order, dated 7‑9‑1981 dismissing the appellant from service. The appellant preferred an appeal to the full Board consisting of Mr. M. Aslam Awais, Mr. A.K. Khalid and Mr. Asad Ali Shah, Members, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant was exonerated from 2nd charge and was held guilty of first charge only. Punishment of dismissal was reduced to stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been exonerated from the main charge while accepting his appeal by the full Board. He has been only held responsible for a minor omission in respect of 7 mutations which were consigned with a delay of 7 to 20 days. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that this omission does not come under the purview of inefficiency on the part of the appellant. This omission relates to the consigning record to the Tehsil office which is a ministerial work 'and was required to be got done by his lower staff. He is not responsible for this omission and has been punished unnecessarily and thus, injustice has been done to the appellant. He argued that a reference be made to 1981 PLC (C.S.) 660, Shamsher Abbas v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, appeal No. 200 of 1980 decided on 15th December, 1980 by this Tribunal, wherein penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for two years was altered to that of censure in case of Shamsher Abbas, Naib‑Tehsildar who was charged for delay in disposal of a case. He also referred to P L D 1977 S C 24, A. U. Musarrat v. Government of West Pakistan, civil appeal No. 30 of 1971 decided on 12th November, 1976 wherein delay in dealing with a case was not held justified. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded that keeping the facts and circumstances of this case in view, the appellant is not at all guilty of the charge against him and the impugned order be set aside. The learned District Attorney also agreed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the reduced punishment to stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is too harsh and censure to the appellant in this case would satisfy the ends of the justice.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, the District Attorney and have also carefully studied the record of this case. The full Board, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore have dropped the main charge against the appellant regarding fabrication of a new register and the appellant has been held responsible for the charge in respect of 7 mutations which were consigned with a delay of 7 to 20 days. Thus there is negligence on the part of the appellant for consigning of the record for late by some days only. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that this negligence cannot be treated as inefficiency but the appellant is definitely responsible in derelicting of his duties on consigning of the record. But keeping in view the nature of the charge proved against him and this being the first lapse on his part, we agree with the learned District Attorney that the punishment awarded to the appellant is too harsh and "censure" to the appellant would meet the ends of the justice. In this connection reliance is placed on our earlier judgment reported as 1981 P L C (C. S) 660.

6. Keeping the above analysis in view, we set aside the impugned order of full Board, Board of Revenue; Lahore, dated 27‑10‑1981 to the extent that stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect be altered to that of "censure". The appeal is thus ordered to be accepted to that extent. There will be no orders as to costs. M.I. Appeal accepted.