' MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).---Appellant is Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer (AETO), who, while posted at Sialkot was confronted with the allegations along with some others (Co-accused) that some persons had died in Sialkot City as they had taken poisonous liquor which was being sold in the city whereas the appellant and the co-accused according to statement of allegations failed to exercise adequate vigilance to detect proliferatory activities of licensees in the preparation of intoxicant material/liquor. It was also alleged that the appellant and others had failed to take necessary measures to apprehend the culprits and that their information network was not adequate and that they seemed to have connived with culprits in the preparation and sale of illicit liquor. Inquiry was ordered under PRSO 2000. Appellant submitted reply to the charge- sheet marinating that charge No,1 related to gujranwals, whereas the appellant was posted at Sialkot. He also explained that he had not been provided any support staff i,e, Inspector, clerk or even constable or any transport etc. But even then he had taken all necessary measures, including detection of large quantity of liquor and registration of cases against drug-peddlers and users of illicit liquor. The explanation tendered by the appellant was found convincing by the Inquiry Officer.
Inquiry Officer, therefore, recommended to drop proceedings against the appellant as there had been found no evidence of connivance of the appellant with the culprits or any inefficiency on his part. However, the Authority did not agree with the Inquiry Officer and awarded the appellant penalty of stoppage of two annual increments. Minor punishments were also awarded to other accused officials through impugned orders dated 24-6-2003. Appellant filed departmental appeal, but the same was rejected through impugned orders dated 18-7-2005 hence present appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed his arguments at length maintaining that in the first place, the Authority who passed the impugned orders awarding the appellant penalty was not competent to do so because the said Authority had been appointed as D.g. E&T, in contravention of service rules and that his appointment had been challenged before the competent Court of law and subsequently, this appointment was legalized through an amendment in law, whereas at the time the punishment was awarded so such amendment in the Service Rules had been made. It is next stated that the appellant had nothing to do with the preparation of liquor because this was taking place at Gujranwala and the appellant was posted at Sialkot and that this fact could not be denied by the respondents. Appellant had taken all necessary steps against the culprits but this was mainly a matter, which fell in the jurisdiction of law and order agencies i,e, police and other agencies, whereas the appellant was not well-equipped to mobilize himself as he had no support- staff and no transport facility etc. It is also averred that some deaths in the city had taken place as per report .Of the Chemical Examiner due to use of methyl-alcohol which was not under the purview of the E&T Department. Moreover, the appellant was working as supervisory officer like the District E&T Officer in the area and if the appellant was to be considered guilty, then the E&T Officer and others supervisory officers should also have been considered guilty and should have been proceeded against, but no action was taken against them and discrimination was made against the appellant and he was awarded punishment in order to block his service career.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents. It is maintained by the respondents that the Authority had the powers to disagree with the inquiry officer and that action was taken by the Authority in accordance with law, as the appellant had failed to come out of the inertia and that deaths due to excessive use of liquor, had taken place because the E&T staff had failed to take proper measures against sellers of such liquor in the area. It is also maintained that no discrimination was made against the appellant and that the Authority who had passed the orders punishing the appellant was competent to do so as the said Authority had been appointed/posted by the Chief Minister.
4. Arguments heard and record perused. Without going into the controversy whether the Authority who had passed the impugned orders was posted as D.G. E&T in accordance with law or not, I find that discrimination was quite evident from the impugned orders. The fact is not denied by the respondents that the appellant was not provided with adequate support-staff and other facilities to enable him to take effective measures against the sale and use of illicit liquor in the area.
Moreover, if the appellant was to be considered guilty of having loose administrative control, as a result of which sale of illicit liquor was going on, then the District Officer i,e, EXT Officer was also equally at fault and he was also likewise a supervisory officer and had failed in his supervisory role to eliminate or to atleast curb the proliferated business of use of illicit liquor. I also agree with the appellant that basically the matter fell in the jurisdiction of law and order agencies. The fact is not denied that preparation of illicit liquor was taking place in an area which was not the area under the control of the appellant. Moreover, no satisfactory reply is furnished by the respondents on the point that deaths had taken place as per report of the Chemical Examiner due to excessive use of methyl-alcohol and not use of liquor and that this was not under the control of the E&T Department. I also find that according to Inquiry Officer, no charge was proved against the appellant and he had not been found guilty. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, appeal is accepted and impugned orders are set aside. The authority shall be at liberty to proceed against the appellant afresh, but only on concrete allegations that could be substantiated and in that case regular inquiry shall have to be held.