QAZI MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.- Advocate for the Appellant is present. Advocate for the Respondents is not present. D.R. Mr. Abdul Mannan Bhatti, who is Law Officer of the Respondents is present.
2. On the last date of hearing we had, heard the learned Advocates for the parties and we had recorded the arguments of both sides which are reproduced as under: "Advocates for parties are present. We have heard them arid have perused the record of the case.
The Appellant was originally penalized with dismissal from service but later on he was reinstated in service by converting the penalty of dismissal from service into reduction to one stage lower in the pay grade vide Memo, dated 30.12.2002. The learned Counsel for the Appellant states that there is a petty allegation of misconduct against the Appellant of obtaining copies of official noting pertaining -to his Appeal dated 15.1.2002 unauthorizedly; for such a petty misconduct even the conversion of the penalty of the Appellant to one grade lower is also .Extremely harsh as it has affected adversely the income of the Appellant to support his family causing extreme hardship for him; that conversion of the penalty on humanitarian grounds needed further sympathy for the poor Appellant, therefore, the learned Counsel requested that instead of reduction to lower that post the penalty be converted into reduction to one stage lower in time scale; further that the Appellant will be satisfied if the Tribunal may graciously be pleased to accept such v request for the .Appellant for which the Appellant will not press the appeal on merit. Adjourned to 18.3.2006 for consideration of the request of the Appellant and for further arguments; if any of the Advocate for the Respondents."
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has reiterated the above-mentioned argument and request. Departmental Representative Mr. Abdul Mannan Bhatti, who is Law Officer of the Respondents has stated that the Respondents will have no objection if the Tribunal considers the request of the Advocate for the appellant.
4. We have gone through the record of the case and considered the request of the learned counsel for the Appellant. The allegation against the Appellant of obtaining copies of official noting pertaining to his Appeal dated 15.1.2002 unauthorizedly would, no ' doubt constitute misconduct on his part but it was a petty misconduct which was pertaining to his Appeal dated 15.1.2002.
Considering the petty nature of the misconduct, we are inclined to accept the request of the learned counsel for the Appellant. We, therefore, partially allow the appeal and modify the penalty of the Appellant of reduction to one stage lower in pay grade i. e. Demotion to the post of Assistant Manager to lower stage in time scale for one year. The intervening period shall be treated as leave of any kind due to the Appellant.
Announced in Open Court on this 17th day of June, 2006.
5. Copies of Judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover under rule .21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.