Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 517/282 of 1985, decided on 6th March, 1986.
---‑R. 4(1)(ii)‑‑Withholding of increments, could not be made with cumulative effect.
‑‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Inefficiency and negligence‑‑Charge established‑‑Penalty of withholding of two increments, in circumstances, upheld.
Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.
A.G. Humayune District Attorney for Respondents.
.‑‑Nazir Ahmad, Patwari, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 4‑7‑1984 and final order, dated 11‑6‑1985/4‑8‑1985 be set aside and appellant's increments be restored.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was suspended from service by order, dated 22‑10‑1976, on the allegations that the appellant entered two wrong Mutations Nos. 966 and 966/1. However, he was re‑instated in service vide, order, dated 31‑E‑1977. Ultimately he was dismissed from service vide order, dated 23‑1‑1978 in connection with another case relating to Mutations Nos. 1036, 1037 and 1038. After exhausting all departmental remedies, the appellant filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which was accepted vide its judgment, dated 16‑4‑1980, and case was remanded for fresh decision and after holding proper inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (E a D) Rules, 1975. However, the appellant was charge‑sheeted on 15‑8‑1981, in which 59 charges of entering wrong mutations were levelled. The appellant submitted a detailed reply in which he refuted all the charges. The regular inquiry was entrusted to Naib‑Tehsildar, who submitted his report, dated 25‑3‑1984. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the appellant from all the charges except entering of Mutation No.966/1, dated 6‑4‑1976 and Mutation No.1037. A show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant, dated 5‑5‑1984 on the basis of two charges. The appellant filed reply to the said show‑cause notice on 10‑5‑1984 respondent No.l vide his order, dated 4‑7‑1984, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of 57 charges and exonerated the appellant from the same. However, with regard to two charges, the Enquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of negligence and carelessness, the competent authority accepted the finding and awarded the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. He filed appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore who upheld the order of respondent No.l, dated 4‑7‑1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the appellant has been held guilty of negligence and carelessness in maintaining the record, which only means inefficiency and not misconduct. According to him Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, the punishment could be ordered only in cases of 'subversion', 'corruption' or misconduct but not on the charge of inefficiency. He has vehemently argued that when the charges of corruption and misconduct were not proved against the appellant the charge of inefficiency would also fail. He has pleaded that the appellant was heavily overworked and thus the two charges were not the result of any ulterior motive but due to bona fide mistakes. He has referred to the service record of the appellant spreading over a period of 24/25 years and has submitted that the same was unblemished,
6. Learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department in extenso and has submitted that the plea of overworked, could not be allowed to commit any sort of errors or omission, and the appellant has already been leniently dealt with by penalty of stoppagel of two increments. He has conceded that the increments could only be' stopped without cumulative effect and not with cumulative effect.
7. We have perused the two judgments of learned A.D.C. /Collector and the Commissioner and find that his conclusion so arrived at, could neither be considered erroneous nor unjust. Although 57 allegations out of 59 were stood not proved against him but the remaining two allegations were also of identical nature of entering and transferring of excess area of Khasra Nos. 175 and 1663 of Mauza Charar through Mutation Nos. 966/1 and 1037. The appellant's plea that Bandobast area of Khasras Nos. 175 and 1663 was 4 Kanals 14 Marlas and 11 Kanals 7 Marlas respectively, but in Mutation Nos. 966/1 and 1037, it was entered as 6 Kanals 8 Marlas, 12 Kanals 12 Marlas on the strength of Bandobast record and no loss occurred to any party. Learned A . D.C. /Collector did concede that no loss has been caused to the Central Government nor the transferee has gained anything, he was of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of inefficiency in the maintenance of Government record. We fully agree with the finding of facts, which has been upheld by the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, and it being the case of two concurrent findings of facts against the appellant, we hardly find any justification to interfere with the same. However, the stoppage of increments for two years, would be only without cumulative effect and not with cumulative effect, as ordered by both the learned A.D.C./Collector and the Commissioner, as this would be against the rules laid down in this behalf. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed as being without any merit.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer