' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---By means of instant common judgment we intend to dispose of listed petitions for leave to appeal arising out of the judgment, dated 1st August, 2003 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in pursuance whereof quantum of punishment awarded to respondents of removal from service altered to the following effect:--- Sr.
No.Name of respondent and C.P. No. Punishment awarded.
1.Javed Iqbal Respondent (in C.P. No.2558-L of 2003)
Tariq Mehmood Respondent (in C.P. 2601-L of 2003)Reduction in pay by three stages.
2.Rana M. Irshad Respondent (in C.P.2598-L of 2003)Reduction to the lower post for a period of two years with effect from 22-10-2002.
Mehdi Shah Respondent (in C.P.2599-L of 2003)
Rana M. Amin Respondent (in C.P.2600-L of 2003).
' Concluding para. From the impugned judgment being identical in all the cases for convenience is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "All the appellants were awarded punishment of removal from service. Appellants are definitely guilty of culpable negligence, dereliction of duty, want of care and caution and utter slackness. The question, however, hounds the mind is whether the penalty was commensurate with the gravity of the charges or was too harsh. Anjum Sardar, A.C.I. Of Food Directorate, Lahore was entrusted with the job of fumigation. P.W.2 in his statement has placed equal blame on Anjum Sardar that he had to check the results of fumigation and to re-fumigate if necessary, in case desired results were not achieved. Anjum Sardar, as deposed by P.W.2 did not care to know about the results of fumigation.
He fumigated 20 shells on 24-6-1999 and against six shells on 5-7-1999, but on second visit he did not bother to check the results of 11 days earlier fumigation of 20 shells. In other wards, Anjum Sardar ran off with a minor penalty though recommended major by enquiry officer, although he contributed towards the negligence as much as the appellants. All said and done penalty of removal from service awarded to appellants Rana Muhammad Irshad, Mehdi Shah and Rana Muhammad Ameen to major penalty of reduction to the lower post for a period of 2 years w,e,f, 22- 10-2002. They shall be reinstated in service and period from the date of removal from service till their reinstatement shall be treated as leave extraordinary without pay. As regards, Tariq Mehmood, appellant in Appeal No,410 of 2003, who was inducted in service as Food Grains Supervisor, his penalty of removal from service is altered to reduction in pay scale by 3 stages. He shall be also reinstated in service and the intervening period between his removal from service and reinstatement shall be treated as leave extraordinary without pay."
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioners were proceeded against departmentally under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance, 2000'] on stated allegations being inefficient etc. In performing their duties at P.R. Centre Musa Virk, District Khanewal in 1999. Additional Director of the Directorate of Food, Punjab visited the said P.R. Centre in November 1999 and submitted a report to the Secretary Food Department in respect of heavy infestation in the Godowns. Each employee i,e, respondents alleged to have been guilty of negligence and inefficient in performance of their duties relating to fumigation to the stocks etc. The Investigating Officer so appointed recommended against each of the respondents for punishment of removal from service. Such recommendations were, however, accepted by the competent authority as such, they were removed from service. On appeal learned Service Tribunal vide impugned judgments, separately passed in each case but by making common conclusion, while maintaining the punishment reduced its quantum, details of which have already been furnished hereinabove. As such instant petitions for leave to appeal have filed by the Department.
3. Ms. Yasmin Sehgal, learned Assistant Advocate General appeared on behalf of Government of Punjab and contended that the respondents are responsible for causing huge damage to the wheat stock meant for the supply throughout in the Province of Punjab on account of their inefficiency and negligence, therefore, the punishment of removal from service was rightly awarded to the respondents by the department but learned Service Tribunal without assigning any strong justification had reduced the same.
4. It is to be noted that respondents vide Civil. Petitions Nos.2523-L, 3531-L and 2533-L/2003 had also challenged the impugned judgments but during arguments withdrew the same with the permission of the Court.
5. It is important to note that under section 3 of the Ordinance, 2000 the competent authority can award one of the following punishments if in its opinion a person is found inefficient or has ceased to be efficient for any reason or guilty of misconduct or corrupt or may reasonably be considered as corrupt:--- a. Removal from service; or b. Compulsory retirement from service; or c. Reduction to lower post or pay scale; or d. One of more minor penalties as prescribed in the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999.
6. It is also important to note that the word 'inefficient' has not been defined in this Ordinance, however, definition of the word `misconduct' is almost the same which has been assigned to it in Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1999. There is no gain in saying that charges of guilty of misconduct or corruption are always considered at higher pedestal than the charge of inefficiency. No doubt the competent authority had jurisdiction to award any of the above punishments to the Government employee but for the purpose of safe administration of justice, such punishment should be awarded which commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt otherwise the law dealing with the subject will lose its efficacy. In instant case admittedly respondents are not guilty of the charge of misconduct or corruption, therefore, extreme penalty of removing them from service for the charge of inefficiency or negligence was on a high side. As such we are of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice learned Service Tribunal has rightly reduced the quantum of punishment awarded to the respondents by the competent authority. As the judgment of the Service Tribunal has proceeded on recognized principles of law as has been discussed hereinabove, therefore, impugned judgment admits no interference by this Court.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons instant petitions are dismissed and leave declined.