' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The Government of Punjab seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 29-10-2002 of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The facts of the case are briefly noted here under.
2. The respondent was working as Senior Instructor (Mech.) in BS-16 in the Government Apprentices Training Centre, College Road, Township, Lahore. Vide order dated 28-12-1996, he was transferred to the Apprentices Training Centre, Gujranwala. He filed a representation against the said order but did not comply with it. On 28-6-1997 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner according to which not only the transfer order, dated 28-12-1996 was disobeyed but also that the order of the Director, Labour and Manpower dated 18-2-1997 passed on respondent's application dated 17-2- 1997 was not complied with, he was relieved from duty on 31-12-1996, as his successor had taken over the charge, despite that, he was wilfully and unathorizedly absented from duty from 1-1-1997, the appeal before the Labour and Manpower Department was rejected vide order dated 21-5-1997 and despite notice issued by the Principal, Government Apprentices Training Centre, Lahore on 5- 6-1997, he did not report for duty. There was yet another charge i,e, misuse of the Government residence by the respondent's wife and his sister-in-law, who were also Government servants, but no rent was being deducted from their salaries. An inquiry was held in the matter and according to the report of the Inquiry Officer charges of disobedience of the order of transfer of the Director, Labour and Manpower, wilful and unauthorized absence from 1-1-1997 and misuse of Government residence were proved against the respondent. Accordingly, vide order dated 24-1-1997, major penalty of reduction to a lower rank was imposed upon him. His departmental appeal having been dismissed, he filed an appeal before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal which was partly allowed vide judgment, dated 29-10-2002 and penalty of reduction to a lower rank was converted into censure.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General has contended that the reason for interference of the learned Tribunal is wholly unsustainable and will create serious administrative problems because according to the impugned judgment, a representation against an order of transfer justifies non- compliance of an order by a civil servant. He maintains that the assumption of the learned Tribunal that the proceedings were initiated against the respondent because of the annoyance of the "Authority" is also not borne out from the record. According to him, although the Tribunal was competent to reduce the penalty yet the discretion could not be exercised arbitrarily as has been done in the present case.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned judgment His only contention is that the next day of the order of transfer he filed a representation was awaiting the decision thereof and that he reported for duty at his place of posting on 1-7-1997 after rejection of his departmental appeal against the order of transfer.
5. The submissions have been considered. As a result of the inquiry, the charges against the respondent stood proved and this finding of the "Authority" was not disturbed by the learned Tribunal. These included disobedience of the order of transfer as also non-compliance of the direction dated 5-6-1997 of the Principal of the Lahore Centre. The respondent relinquished the charge on 30-6-1997 only when the charge-sheet had been issued to him. Perusal of the record shows that on 21-5-1997 his representation against the order of transfer was rejected which was conveyed to the respondent vide letter dated 5-6-1997 of the Principal of Lahore College. The said letter specifically directed the respondent to hand over the charge and vacate the official residence. The respondent, however, did not even comply with the said order. Thus, contumacious insubordination and indiscipline on the part of the respondent having been established disentitled him to any indulgence in A the matter of quantum of penalty. It is not possible for us to agree with the reasoning of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal because merely by filing an appeal/representation against the order of transfer the respondent could not stay at a place of his choice unless operation of the transfer order was stayed which was not the case. This view, if affirmed, will give licence to every civil servant to file a representation against an order of transfer and to stay at a place from which he did not want to move. This will create administrative chaos.
6. It is no doubt true that the learned Tribunal can, in their discretion, reduce the penalty in an appropriate case. However, the exercise of discretion is to be informed by reason and based on relevant considerations. One broad principle is that the penalty should be proportionate to the guilt.. What is proportionate to the guilt depends on facts and circumstances of a given case such as the nature of duties, the level of responsibility, the nature of the organization and the conduct of the civil servant, his service record, the nature of misconduct etc. After B concurring with the finding of the departmental authorities as to the guilt of a civil servant, their decision on the quantum of penalty should be respected because while imposing penalty, the departmental authority may have variety of factors in view. For example, if in a particular office, the discipline is alarmingly eroded, and despite warning the situation does not improve, the competent authority may, in a case of a small misfeasance, justifiably take extreme action. There could yet be another situation i,e, that two officials of the same grade in the same office are charged with minor similar misfeasance. One is an efficient and hardworking official while the other is lethargic, avoids accepting responsibility or may have other negative trait. The authority may have soft corner for the first and he may be visited with a minor penalty While in case of the other, the authority may have a different approach.
7. The observation of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal that the authority was annoyed with the respondent for filing appeal against the order of transfer could not be projected as a justification for reducing the penalty. The reason being that after rejection of respondents' departmental appeal on 21-5-1997, he was asked to join the place of posting vide letter, dated 5-6-1997 but he did not comply with the said direction. In fact, respondents' obstinate conduct had driven the authority to the point where it was left with no option but to take departmental action against him.
8. In the present case, we could not find any valid reason for reduction of the penalty by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and are of the view that discretion was exercised by the learned Tribunal on irrelevant consideration in an arbitrary manner which the law does not countenance and requires correction.
9. Accordingly, while converting this petition into appeal, it is allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal is set aside, thereby restoring the penalty awarded by the departmental authority.