Find a Lawyer

Case No. 318/951 of 1984, decided on 15th January, 1985.

‑‑ Disciplinary action ‑ Past service record ‑ Clerk of Judicial Record Room charged for deliberately making wrong report about entry of a file as not traceable ‑Penalty of stoppage of two incre ments imposed‑Service Tribunal taking into consideration past good service record ‑ Appellant though at fault punishment, in circumstances, held, harsh and not in consonance with fault and in view of good service record penalty converted into censure. Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Mian Anwar Ali for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑ Muhammad Bashir Javed, Junior Clerk, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 27th September, 1982 passed by the respondent No. 3, order dated 29th January, 1983 passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 23rd February, 1982 passed by the respondent No. 1 be set aside and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect be declared as without justification and illegal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted on the allegation that during his posting as 'Pargana Moharrir' in the Judicial Record Room of the office, the consigned file of a case State v. Niamat All etc., under section 420/406/512 of P. S. Misri Shah, Lahore decided on l 8th September, 1977 by the Court of Mr. Nasar Ullah Khan Cheema, M. I. C. was requisitioned by Raja Safdar Hussain, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore for three times but the appellant deliberately made a wrong report that the entry of the said file was not traceable in the record. In fact the entry of the said file was present in the Record Room at Goshwara No. 37622. The reply submitted to the charge‑sheet was found unsatisfactory. A regular inquiry was ordered to be conducted against the appellant by Ch. Abdul Haq, E. A. C. Lahore. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20th August, 1982, After going through the report of the Enquiry Officer and hearing the appellant in person the respondent No. 3, awarded punishment for the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide his order dated 27th September, 1982. The appel lant made an appeal to the Commissioner. Lahore Division and the same was rejected vide order dated 29th January, 1983. The appellant made another service appeal to the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide his order, dated 23rd February, 1984. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mian Anwar Ali, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished due to misunderstanding otherwise the appellant was not at fault. The consigned case decided on 18th September, 1977 was requisitioned by the learned Magistrate but the appellant mis read this date as 18th September, 1973 hence he could not produce the requisitioned file and reported that the said file was not traceable in the record. Thus, the report was not made by the appellant deliberately with any mala fide intention, The appellant's counsel has also submitted that appellant has a good service record and the punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh and sympathetic view should have been taken by the respondents, as all what happened was due to mistake and not with any mala fide intention of the appellant.

6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and also on the enquiry report. He has submitted that the appellant has been punished after the charge was proved against the appellant, hence, he has been punished correctly and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case very carefully. He find that the appellant is at fault but keeping in view the good service record of the appellant we feel that the punishment awarded to the appellant is harsh and is not in consonance with the fault of the appellant.

8. The result is that the appeal is accepted to the extent that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is con verted into "Censure" in view of good service record of the appellant. The impugned orders are modified to the above extent.

There are no order as to costs.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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