DR. AKHTAR HASAN KHAN (MEMBER).---This is an appeal by Syed Iftikhar Ali Shah who felt aggrieved by an order dated 22-8-2000 whereby he was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct/inefficiency. He preferred departmental appeal on 30-8-2000 which was not responded to. The present appeal filed on 21-12-2000 is, therefore, within time. The appellant was served with a letter of explanation, which reads as follows:-- ' "You were transferred to the disposal of XEN Kasur Divn., Kasur vide SE 5th Lahore Circle S/on 0683, dated 25-4-2000, endost No,10239-42, dated 25-4-2000 and subsequently, you were relieved on the same date vide P/500 N.M. Vide Memo. No, 981-84, dated 23-4-2000. You were instructed to acknowledge the said memo, but you refused to comply the order as "Competent Authority" have considered the case under rule 5(1) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978 applicable to you and upon consideration, I have decided that it is not necessary to have a formal enquiry conducted in this case."
' The appellant in his rejoinder explanation letter stated as follows:-- ' "It is a matter of record that no such order was served either on25th or 27th as I performed my duties till 26th (A. N.) and on 27th I was not allowed to mark attendance due to knowledge of my grievance notice: however on 28th April you refused to receive Court's order and desired acknowledgement of the said order and accordingly I endorsed the order of Court on it on 28-4- 2000. Thereafter these orders were sent through UMS on 28-4-2000 simultaneously to all concerned.
' This notice is after thought, which is borne out from Postal Stamps on the Envelope. An Official cannot be relieved in Air simply by signing an order hence the question of my being .Relieved is nothing but rude attempt to defeat the process of Law, besides despite receipt of Court's orders even by UMS and REGD. Post you deliberately refused excess in office.
' It is also in your knowledge that my earlier Transfer orders were suspended by Chief Engineer (Admn.) Power WAPDA House on 10-4-1997 in view of the orders of the apex Supreme Court and the Appeal is still pending orders of learned S.E. Alleged to be for 25th April, 2000 have not been acted upon hence the question of its violation does not arise."
' The appellant has also submitted a letter whereby he was recommended for accelerated promotion, which reads as under:- "(a) Basic conditions:
(i) He was employed as Meter Reader w.e.f, 2-9-1975 and was given selection grade (BPS-7) with effect from 18-10-1987. As such, he has completed the prescribed years of service in that grade as laid down in the relevant service rules for promotion, to the next higher grade.
(2) He has earned good reports throughout his career and the grading of his last three ACR.s as confirmed from the record, is Very Good'.
(3) He has blotless service throughout besides having clean 'conduct sheet'. His A. C.Rs, did not contain any adverse remarks.
(b) Qualifying Conditions.
Keeping in view the performance and excellent past services rendered by the official, it can be observed that the official has secured 5 points to qualify for accelerated promotion. The personal qualification and performance of the official is given as under please:- {{TABLE}} Integrity Excellent beyond doubt Intelligence Remarkable Loyalty to the department Remarkable beyond doubt Capacity to organize work Excellent Tack and co-operation Excellent Ability to deal with public Very Good Punctuality Very Good {{TABLE}} ' He worked quite honestly and whole-hearted. Due to his efficiency, honesty, and hardwork, the department has charged 72157 units as Detection Bills. List showing notices and detection bills charged under his report are enclosed hereto alongwith photo-copies of notices and detection bills, (Annexure , II, III, "A" "B" &T report)" C/1 to C/38". D/1 to D/54".
' His special work and conduct report, which is "Very Good" and A.C.Rs,from 9-6-1990 to 30-9-1993, which are Very Good's are also enclosed hereto please.
' Keeping in view his extraordinary and exceptional performance in the light of Authority's circulars, it is strongly recommended that the official (Meter Reader BPS-7) may be promoted as Meter Supervisor Grade-II (BPS-7) by awarding him accelerated promotion for which he fully deserves.
2. The respondents in their comments have stated that the appellant is in the habits of making disparaging remarks, false and frivolous complaints about his superiors and exhibiting conduct of unbecoming of an employee and a gentleman. He is also in the habit of wilful insubordination and breach of service discipline and the instructions issued by the Authority. Furthermore he is a habitual litigant on frivolous and illegal causes who views every action of his superiors with contempt and doubt. He oversees the fact that whenever he performed well in his duties he received due appreciation while upon inefficiency he was dealt with accordingly.
3. The letter of explanation does not indicate inefficiency on the part of the appellant and his failure to receive the letter does not elicit the major penalty of dismissal from service as given to him vide order dated 22-8-2000. It seems that there was some bad relationship betweenthe appellant and his superior and the allegation of refusal to acknowledge a memo, is not a ground for dismissing a Government servant. Hence the order dated 22-8-2000 is modified from dismissal from service to that of censure as per section 5(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and the appellant is reinstated in service with full back-benefits. There is no charge of corruption and inefficiency against the appellant for which he deserves punishment of dismissal.
4. No order as to costs.
5. Parties be informed.