' MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).--- This single judgment shall also dispose of appeal No,1828 of 2004, since quite identical facts are involved and common questions of law are being raised through these appeals.
2. Appeals are directed against the impugned orders dated 25-1-2004 vide which the appellants, who are Directors Excise and Taxation in the Excise and Taxation Department were imposed upon the minor penalty of "Censure" under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (PRSO). Appellants filed departmental appeals, but the same were rejected through final/appellate orders dated 5-7-2004, hence present appeals in this Tribunal.
3. As per facts relevant to these appeals, the appellants along with two other co-accused officers namely Masood-ul-Haq, E&T Officer and Muhammad Iqbal, E&T Officer were served with common charge-sheet by the Inquiry Officer on 2-10-2002 containing the following allegations:- "While posted as Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore (Region-C) a complaint lodged by Mr. Muhammad Amin son of Allah Yar resident of Bhekewal, Lahore was received from Provincial Monitoring and Coordination Secretariat vide their letter No,CC-7-7/2000, dated 18-2-2000 which was forwarded to you by the Administrative Department vide letter No,SOCC(E&T)7-7/2000, dated 24-2-2000 for furnishing report within seven days positively. The letter, dated 24-2-2002 followed as many as 22 reminders dated 7-3-2000, 25-3-2000, 5-4-2000, 8-5-2000 (D.O. Letter 5-6-2000), 5-7-2000, 11-9-2000, 11-10-2000, 2-11-2000, 11-12-2000, 1-1-2001, 23-1-2001, 9-2-2001, (13-2-2001 D.0.), 26-2-2001, 21-3-2001, 10-4-2001, 8-5-2001, 8-6-2001, 28-6-2001, 12-7-2001 and 24-7-2001. After so many reminders, you failed to submit the report on the above complaint."
' Inquiry was conducted into the allegations levelled against the appellants. Inquiry Officer expressed the opinion that the issue regarding submission of report on a complaint of one Muhammad Amin received from Provincial Monitoring and Coordination Secretariat (Army Corps HQ) had been delayed unnecessarily by the appellants as well as the co-accused E&T Officer/Motor Registering Authority. The Inquiry Officer suggested that minor penalty be imposed upon the appellants and the co-accused ETO, Muhammad Iqbal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Shamim Ahmad (Appeal No,1828. Of 2004) has addressed his detailed arguments. Similarly, Muhammad Sarfraz Wafa, appellant in Appeal No,1643 of 2004 has argued his own case. It is maintained by them at the very outset that disciplinary proceedings instituted against the appellants were ab initio illegal as the concerned authorities just failed to act in accordance with law. It is averred that in the first place, no statement of allegation was conveyed to the appellants which was an indispensable requirement of law. Secondly, the charge- sheet itself was an inconsistent document because the appellants were confronted with the same allegation of not responding to a letter dated 24-2-2000 and 22 reminders issued on different dates, whereas the appellants neither received the trail of 22 reminders nor was it otherwise possible that the appellants should have received 22 reminders individually. It is stated that charges/allegations have always to be individual allegations and that there was no concept of framing common allegations when the period of incumbency of each appellant differed. It is next maintained that the appellant, Shamim Ahmad remained posted as Director E&T Lahore (C) from 4-11-1999 to 1-7-2000 and then from 28-7-2001 to 29-10-2001 and during this period the said appellant neither received the original letter calling for a report nor received any reminders as per office receipt record and, therefore, question of non-compliance of any direction from the administrative department did not arise. It is further pointed out that the appellant Muhammad Sarfraz Wafa did receive few reminders and some time was naturally consumed in obtaining report from concerned lower office because the appellant happened to be a supervisory officer and that the report was ultimately submitted to the administrative department on 4-5-2001. It is maintained that concluding para. Of the charge-sheet that appellants failed to submit any report was, therefore, totally baseless. It has been further urged that the appellants had been performing duties in supervisory capacity, whereas the letter and reminders were basically meant for the Motor Registering Authority/ETO and it was he i,e, ETO, who was supposed to take action and to submit requisite report, whereas the said ETO who had caused all the delay and embarrassment, was let off, out of favoritism. It is next stated that similar favouritism was shown and discrimination was made as the co-accused Masood-ul-Haq, ETO was also let off and the appellants were awarded punishment for the sake of punishment. The appellants have emphasized the fact in the course of their arguments/submissions before this Tribunal that they were supervisory officers in the same way as D.G. E&T was and if they were to be considered held inefficient, then the said D.G.
E&T/respondent No,3 should have also been held inefficient, but instead, the said respondent was appointed as Inquiry Officer to look into the charges against the appellants which was illegal and an act of discrimination against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No,1828 of 2004 is impassioned in his contention that the authority had already made up its mind to award some punishment to the appellants as was reflected from the very contents of the show- cause notice according to which the Authority "decided to impose upon you one of the penalties as prescribed under PRSO", whereas through a show-cause notice, the Authority usually unfolds its intention/proposal to impose a penalty. Learned counsel also states that this pre-determined attitude and mala fide on the authority was also evident from the fact that charge-sheet was issued to the appellants after delay of 14 months. It is finally maintained that prejudice of the authority against the appellant was also clear from the fact that the Inquiry Officer also held the officials in the E&T Secretariat responsible for concealment of the report submitted by the appellant Muhammad Sarfraz Wafa and that the Inquiry Officer suggested to take action against them, but no action was taken against officials of the Secretariat and only the appellants were marked for punitive action.
5. Appeals are opposed by the respondents. It is maintained that an important complaint was received from the Army authorities/PMCS on which report was called within seven days, but in spite of 22 reminders sent to the appellants, no report was submitted by them. It is further maintained that inquiry was held and the charges of inefficiency and misconduct were proved against the appellant and, therefore, they were awarded the punishment of "Censure" in accordance with law.
It is maintained that similarly the departmental appeals filed by the appellants were also dismissed on merits and after granting personal hearing to the appellants through the designated Hearing Officer. If is also stated that report on the complaint was never submitted by any of the appellants and that the Inquiry officer had not drawn correct conclusion regarding receipt of report from one of the appellants or regarding action against those who had concealed that report. It is further stated that the co-accused ETOs were let off since allegations were not proved against them.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the contentions forming the basis of averments from both sides. I find that the respondents have taken an inconsistent stance. On the one hand, the respondents have discredited even the Inquiry Officer by saying that the conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer were not corroborated from record as regards submission of report by one of the appellants and on the other hand the same inquiry report has been made the basis for awarding the appellants penalty of "Censure" and declaring the two co-accused, as innocent. I find substance in the averments made by the appellants that the charge-sheet itself ,was an inconsistent document as both the appellants were held responsible for not responding to 22 reminders; whereas it was practically impossible because the individual period of incumbency of the appellants was not the same and both were not posted as Director ETO Region-C, Lahore, at the same time. I was shown record of receipt by the appellant Shamim Ahmad, according to which he did not receive any reminder. Moreover, I find force in the plea taken by the appellants that they were also supervisory officers in the same way as respondent No,3/D.G. E&T was, but while the appellants were arrayed to face disciplinary proceedings, respondent No,3 comfortably sat in judgment as Inquiry Officer. While it may be possible that the co-accused ETO may also not have received the reminders sent to them, but the fact remains that they had the basic responsibility, to submit a report on the complaint. I also find that procedural lapses were committed by the concerned respondents perhaps, owing to some haste for punishing the appellants. I agree with the appellants that they should have been conveyed statement of allegations as per law, but this was not done. I also find that as per record, report was submitted by the appellant Sarfraz Wafa and apparently this report was misplaced or concealed by the Secretariat staff. I find force in the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer that the Secretariat staff was also responsible for not submitting report to the administrative Secretary in time. Had the report been submitted by Secretariat staff, the Department would not have sent further reminders to the concerned officers.
Therefore, considering the relevant facts of the case in their right perspective and the inconsistencies in the stance taken by the respondents regarding the allegations of inefficiency etc. Against the appellants, the impugned orders are found to be devoid of any legal and moral justification. Appeals are, therefore, accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.