Find a Lawyer

Case No. 593 of 1983, decided on 28th February, 1984.

-----S. 4 read with Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 6 (3) ‑Disciplinary action Clerk of Deputy Commissioner's Office (accused) charged for acceptance of illegal gratification for preparing a deed of conveyance‑Complainant in presence of accused narrating allegation with oath on Holy Quran-- Accused admitting his fault ‑ Show‑cause notice served and penalty of reduction in pay in time‑scale by six stages imposed ‑ Penalty decreased in appeal and revision to reduction of pay by only two stages ‑ Accused, in circumstances, held, already treated very leniently and appeal against such penalty dismissed by Tribunal in limine.

Sheikh Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.

A. G, Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Zulfiqar Ahmad, Junior Clerk, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar has filed this appeal, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 12th September, 1982 of respondent No. 1, dated 12th May, 1983 of respondent No. 2 and dated 15th September, 1983 of respondent No. 3, be set aside, being unlawful, against the facts of the case and being not based on the principle of justice.

3. The appeal is at the preliminary stage of hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that one Abdul Khaliq made a com plaint against the appellant that he had received Rs. 400 from him as illegal gratification for preparation of a Deed of Conveyance. The com plaint was summoned and confronted with the appellant. The appellant offered on his own that if the complainant states with oath on Holy Quran' that he had offered bribe to him (appellant), the appellant will concede the same. Mr. Abdul Khaliq, the complainant, in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar as well as the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Bahawalnagar and in the presence of the appellant took oath on 'Holy Quran' that the appellant has accepted Rs.400 as illegal gratification from him. On this the appellant was suspended on account of misconduct and corruption. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Babawalnagar was appointed as an Authorised Officer. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice under the provision of rule 6 (3) (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice. The pros and cons of the case were considered by the. Authorised Officer who recommended the penalty of his removal from service to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur. By taking a lenient view the appellant was placed at a lower time scale within his National Pay Scale, vide order dated 12th September, 1982 of respon dent No. 1, and his basic pay was reduced from Rs. 422 to Rs. 350 p. m. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Divi sion. Bahawalpur. Again taking a lenient view the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, vide his order dated 12th May, 1983, decreased the punishment in the reduction pay from six increments to four increments. The appellant made a revision petition to the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. Mr. Maqbul Ahmad Sheikh, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, vide his order dated 15th September, 1983, decreased the punishment further to reduction of pay by two increments on compassionate grounds. Hence this appeal.

5. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not at fault and has been punished arbitrarily. He never received Rs. 400 as illegal gratification for preparation of a Deed and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant who had given a false statement with oath on Holy Quran'. It has been vehemently submitted by the appellant's counsel that such type of oath on Holy Quran' is not admissible under the law and this should have been ignored altogether by the respondents keeping in view the unblemish service record of the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant has been punished without proving the charge against him and the impugned orders be set aside, being unlawful and un justified.

6. On the other hand, the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been re‑instated by the learned District Attorney. He has referred to the detailed impugned orders of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and it has been pointed out by him that the appel lant had himself admitted his fault and already a very lenient view has been taken against the appellant by the respondents, otherwise he deserved a major punishment.

7. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also gone very carefully through the impugned orders of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It is clear from the perusal of the record of this case that the appellant himself admitted his fault and the mis conduct stood proved against the appellant. It is also a fact that already a very lenient view has been taken by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in his case. Thus, I consider that no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid, correct and lawful orders.

8. The upshot of the above analysis of this case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such, in limine.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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