Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Case No. 248/259 of 1983, decided on 17th November, 1983.
---S.4-- Stoppage of increment--Civil servant charged with misconduct- Exonerated by Enquiry Officer but recommended to be warned to be careful in future--Penalty of stoppage of increment imposed--Order challenged--Conduct of appellant though found not of dutiful servant, punishment varied to that of warning to be careful in future.
Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun District Attorney for Respondents.
. --Faiz Mohammad, Sr. Clerk, Office of Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Bhakkar has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali, Deputy Commissioner, Bhakkar and Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 17-8-1982 and 2-4-1983, be set aside and the appellant's increment which has been stopped as a result of the impugned orders be restored and the intervening be treated as duty with full benefits of pay and allowances etc.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart ment and have carefully perused the entire record of this case, which includes the comments filed by Mr. Riaz Ahmad, D.C. Bhakkar.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid lot of stress on a report placed on the record as Annexure C, which according to him, was an inquiry report, by which the appellant was exonerated with the rider it was recommended 'that he may be warned to be careful in future. It has been further submitted that the appellant who was sitting in his office suddenly felt pain in his eyes and rushed to the Medical Officer, Kundian, who advised for rest and therefore, his absence from duty without prior permission of his superior cannot be taken into account. It has been vehemently argued that the learned Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioners have visited him with minor penalty which would not be justified as the Enquiry Officer has fully exonerted him.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the facts given by the appellant are false and incorrect and he has tried to hoodwink the Tribunal by making statement which is absolutely against the record of this case. It has been further submitted that the appellant has been lightly let off with minor penalty whereas his act of proceeding on leave without sanction should have ended into his dismissal from service.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that the appellant was formerly working in the office of the Assistant Commissioner Mianwali and was subsequently transferred to the Office of Settlement Officer, Mianwali by the order of D.C. Mianwali dated 8-12-1981. Instead of joining the new assignment the appellant submitted application for leave for urgent work for 10-12-1981, and proceeded on leave outside the headquarters without getting it first sanctioned. The leave application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhakkar. Instead of attending the duties on 11-12-1981, he sent another application for extension in leave w.e.f. 12-12-1981 to 21-12-1981 alongwith a medical certificate through postal dak without recording his leave address as required under rule 8.37 of the C.S.R. Vol. I, Chapter VIII. In view of the above his leave was rejected. He again submitted application for extension of leave upto 25-1-1982, which was rejected. Subsequently a notice was pasted at his residence to the effect that he has been absent. This is how he attended his duties.
7. In view of the established facts on the record the narration of which has been given by D.C. Bhakkar in his comments under his own signatures, we are fully satisfied that the appellant did conduct himself in a manner which was not behaving of a dutiful servant. As the appellant has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer vide his report Annexure C on the record, we vary the punishment of stoppage of one increment to that of warning and working to be careful in future. The appeal is accepted to the extent so given above. There will be no order as to costs.
M.I. Appeal partly accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer