1992 PLP 974 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 18th February, 1992. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑ This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment, dated 7‑9‑1986 of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the appellant.

2. The appellant was serving as Confidential Assistant in the Establishment Branch of Board of Revenue and was as such responsible for the custody the Annual Confidential Reports of the Tehsildars. The case of one Syed Hassan Shah who was serving as Tehsildar in Multan Division came up for consideration before the Promotion Committee. He had received adverse remarks from the Commissioner is his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1981. The appellant was alleged not only to have concealed the said report but substituted it with one which did not contain any adverse remarks., He was also stated to have suppressed all references which were received from time to time from the Commissioner with regard to the said report. Consequently, he was served with two charge‑sheets: one relating to the suppression and substitution of the Annual Confidential Report and the other with regard to his failure to attend to the various references made by the Commissioner to the Board of Revenue. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the first mentioned charge‑sheet.

3. After a regular enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the appellant not guilty on the charge relating to suppression and substitution of the Annual Confidential Report; on the other hand, he came to the conclusion that the substitution had taken place in the office of the Commissioner, Multan Division. His findings were accepted by the Authorised Officer, who, apart from observing that a criminal case be registered against Syed Hassan Shah, recommended that no further action should be taken against the appellant. He sent the papers to the Authority for appropriate orders as required by Rule 7‑A, Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules,' 1975. The Authority (Member, Board of Revenue) did not accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Authorised Officer and instead came to the conclusion that the charge for suppression and substitution of the Annual Confidential Report stood established against the appellant. Accordingly, it served a notice upon the appellant to show cause why the major penalty for dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. The appellant submitted his reply to the notice. The Authority did not find it satisfactory and made 'an order for his compulsory retirement from service. He filed a departmental appeal which was rejected‑ by two Members of the Board of Revenue, sitting together. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but that too failed. He has now come in appeal before this Court.

4. In support of this appeal it is contended that after the Enquiry Officer had found the appellant not guilty and the Authorised Officer had accepted his finding it was not open to the Authority to take a different view and reopen the disciplinary proceedings. This contention is without any substance for it does not find any support from the relevant rules. Rule 7‑A, Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, reads as follows:‑‑

"7‑A.The Authorised Officer, on receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee, shall determine whether the charge has been proved. If it is proposed to impose a minor penalty he shall, after, affording the accused an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed, pass order accordingly. If it is proposed .to impose a major penalty, he shall, after affording the accused an opportunity to offer his explanation against his recommendations for imposition of major penalty, forward the case to the authority alongwith the charge?sheet, a statement of allegations served on the accused, explanation of the accused, the finding of the Inquiry Officer or the Inquiry Committee, as the case may be, and his own recommendations regarding the penalty to be imposed. In case it is proposed to drop the proceedings the Authorised Officer shall submit the case with all relevant material documents to the Authority for appropriate orders." The portion underlined would indicate that it is for the Authority to decide whether the disciplinary proceedings against an accused officer should or should not continue any further, for, in the event the Authorised Officer comes to the conclusion that the charge or charges against an accused officer should be dropped he has to refer the case to the Authority for appropriate orders. In the present appeal, the Authority did not accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the recommendations of the Authorised Officer. We are unable to find any provision in the rules which would make the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the recommendations of the Authorised Officer binding on the Authority. If therefore, despite the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the recommendations of the Authorised Officer the Authority chose to proceed further in the matter, it cannot be said to have acted illegally. This being the position we repel the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the order of the Authority was beyond its competence.

5. We are also unable to accept the contention that there was no evidence upon which the Authority could base its finding that the charge of suppression and substitution of the Annual Confidential Report stood proved against the appellant. Admittedly, the Annual Confidential Report which was sent to the Promotion Committee was not the one which had been recorded by the Commissioner. Thus, there is little doubt that the original report had been suppressed and substituted with another one. The appellant's conduct in suppressing all references which the Board received from the Commissioner's Office was a strong piece of evidence pointing to his role in the matter: It is, therefore, difficult to accept the appellant's contention that it was a case of no evidence.

6. There can also be a little doubt that Syed Hassan Shah had a hand in the suppression and substitution of the Annual Confidential Report. Apparently, no serious action has been taken against him which is somewhat surprising. However, the omission of the Board to take disciplinary, action against this officer does not detract from the gravity of the misconduct alleged against the appellant. In fact he, too, has been lightly treated in the matter of punishment.

7. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.BA./M‑1605/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed