' JUSTICE (RTD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).--- Briefly stated the facts of the appeal are that appellant along with 448 others was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in Sindh Reserve Police vide Notification dated 1-1-1987. He was promoted as Sub Inspector, vide order dated 24-4-1997. Under a policy introduced by the Police Department a large number of A.S.I.Ps.
Recruited in Sindh Reserved Police were ordered to be absorbed/transferred to Regular Police which includes many of the appellant's batch mates and juniors but appellant's name was not amongst them. He repeatedly approached the authorities concerned but on his failure to get his grievance redressed, he directly approached the Secretary, Government of Sindh, Home Department Karachi for his transfer from Sindh Reserve Police to the Regular Police of which the Inspector General Police Sindh, Karachi had taken serious view and on his directions appellant was served with a show-cause notice dated 11-7-2001 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sindh Reserve Police, Hyderabad, alleging therein that: "The IGP Sindh Karachi vide his No.9091-92/E-11/81 dated 5-12-2000 (copy received from DIGP/SHP Sindh. Karachi vide his endst. No.SBP/ADMN/9316 dated 7-7-2001) has reported that you were submitted an application directly to the Home Secretary, Govt. Of Sindh Karachi for transfer from SRP to Regular Police. You have broken the chain of command, which is violation of rules as such you rendered yourself liable for serve departmental action. Explain your position in this IA connection in reply to show-cause notice."
' In his reply, appellant explained his position and stated that he submitted that appeal to the Home Secretary through the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, Karachi and forwarded its copy in advance td the Home Secretary, Sindh, Karachi. His reply was not fund satisfactory and by order dated 31-7-2001 appellant was awarded major punishment of "forfeiture of approved Service for two years" by the Superintendent of Police, S.R.P. Hyderabad. Feeling aggrieved, he preferred departmental appeal to the 'Respondent No.2 Review/mercy petition as provided by Police Rules to Respondent No.1, which remained un-responded. Hence, this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that no public misconduct was committed by the appellant and that there was no guilty intention on his part, His batch-mates and juniors as a policy matter were transferred from Sindh Reserve Police to Regular Police and the appellant was ignored and for redressal of his grievance, he submitted numerous applications of the authorities concerned and as a last resort he submitted an appeal to the Home Secretary through the Inspector General of Police Sindh and simply the copy of said appeal was transmitted by the appellant in advance to the Home Secretary, which by no means amounts to misconduct as defined in Sindh Police (E&D) Rules, 1988. Lastly, he submitted that the punishment awarded to the appellant was highly excessive and not commensurate with the lapse said to have been committed by the appellant.
3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General has relied upon the written statement submitted by the respondents and has argued that by sending application/appeal to the higher authorities direct, the appellant has committed breach of discipline and Government instruction.
He is, therefore, guilty of misconduct and the punishment awarded to him calls for no interference.
4. We have considered the above submissions and with the assistance of both learned counsel we have gone through the material placed on the record. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has not been dealt with properly by the departmental authorities concerned. A large number of his colleagues, batchmates and even juniors as per policy matter were transferred from Sindh 'Reserve Police to Regular Police. The appellant's name was not amongst them. As such he started submitting applications to the authorities concerned for his transfer to Regular Police for his better future prospects but he failed to get his grievance redressed and as a last resort approached the highest authority i.e. Home Secretary. We find that the appellant did submit application/appeal to the Home Secretary directly and being a Government service, the service conduct rules were fully applicable to him and he should have as Government servant, observed the same in letter and spirit, therefore, he is definitely guilty of violation of rules in submitting application/appeal to the higher authority direct. However, his act can not be termed as an act of gross misconduct. At the most in our considered view the act of the appellant could fall in the category of "mere irregularity" on his part and did not amount to public misconduct. The appellant has put in about 14 years of service in the department with unblemished record behind him.
Keeping in mind that there was no guilty intention on the part of appellant, his unblemished service record of about 14 years and this being a first lapse on his part we are of the view that the punishment awarded to appellant was too harsh and not commensurate with the lapse committed by him, we are, therefore, inclined to take a lenient view of the appellant's mistake/lapse.
5. Accordingly, the punishment of "forfeiture of two years approved service' awarded to the appellant is modified/converted to that of 'Stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect'. The appeal is accepted to the above extent and the impugned order is modified accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
6. Announced in open Court.