Find a Lawyer

Case No. 41 of 1982, decided on 5th July, 1982.

‑‑-S. 4‑Appeal against penalty imposed on account of mis‑conduct‑Quantum of punishment‑Clerk of Excise and Taxation Department issuing token and registration of vehicle not falling within his purview according to distribution of subjects‑Penalty of stoppage of two annual increments, in circumstances, held, not in consonance with lapse so committed hence altered to that of cen sure.

Syed Tanseer Asghar for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Nazar Muhammad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 9‑12‑198 t , passed by respondent No. 2 whereby he upheld the order dated 5‑4‑1981 passed by respondent No.‑ 3 inflicting upon the appellant the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with out cumulative effect.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that order dated 9‑12‑1981 and that of 5‑4‑1981, passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted as under :‑

(1) That while posted as incharge of L. E. Y. series he took file of vehicle No. L. E. M.‑3442 (Wagon) on 6‑5‑1980 and effected transfer of the subject vehicle in the name of Muhammad Nawaz son of Muhammad Sharif of Lahore. Also be issued duplicate registration certificate when the entire case was required to be dealt with by the concerned clerk (Qurban Hussain) such state of affairs showed over doing and mala fide intention.

(2) That he issued the registration certificate of the subject vehicle without affixing "duplicate stamp" and contravened rule 38 (2) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969.

(3) That the transfer in the name of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz reported by him was not checked or signed by any of his next higher official/officer which amounts to misconduct.

(4) That there are clear instructions that no Motor Taxation Clerk can issue token of other seat from his token book and he deli berately disobeyed these standing instructions." .

The appellant submitted his explanation but the same was not accepted by the competent authority which imposed upon him minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. This penalty was imposed on the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer Mr. Nishat Harder, who hold the appellant guilty for charges 1, 2 and 4 but, however exonerated him with regard to the allegation levelled in charge No. 3.

4. We have perused the impugned order of Excise and Taxation Officer as well as that of Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore and do not find any exception to interfere with the same on the factual grounds. We re of the considered opinion that the penalty so imposed is not in consonance with the lapse so committed. We are also of the confirmed view of that the end of justice in the eyes of law is squarelyment if the said penalty is varied to that of censure to case of the appellant, in order to make him more vigilant and careful in future while performing his duty as a Junior Clerk.

5. With this modification we dispose of the appeal and maintain the two impugned orders. In view of the above we hereby direct that minor penalty of censure would replace the penalty of stoppage of two incre ments without cumulative effect.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.