' AZAD MUHAMMAD AWAN (MEMBER-I).--- Briefly stated the fact giving rise to the present appeal are that the charges against the appellant were as follows:- "That Rana Nasir Ahmed son of Altaf Hussain, 2-KM, Multan Road Sahiwal, has complained that you took the Registration Book of Vehicle No,LXP-787, on 5-5-2004, being default of token tax, received a sum of Rs,10.000 (Rupees ten thousand only) from his General Manager namely Zafar Ullah Khan son of Ghulam Haider but neither you returned the Registration Book norrupees ten (Rs,10,000) up till then."
2. An inquiry officer was appointed to conduct a detailed inquiry who found that the charges were fully proved. The authority after going through the record awarded the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the pay scale vide orders dated 31-3-2005. This order was not challenged by the appellant. However respondent No,1 caused a show-cause notice served upon the appellant in terms of section 9-A of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 calling upon him to show-cause as to why the penalty awarded by the authority should not be varied and modified by enhancing the penalty. The appellant denied the charges. However, respondent No,1 in exercise of powers under section 9-A of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 converted the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in pay scale into dismissal from service vide orders dated 23-1-2007. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has come up with the present appeal.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have gone through the record. The only legal point involved in this case was as to when powers under section 9-A could be exercised by the authority as was in this case. It was contended that admittedly the authority, vide orders dated 31-3-2005, awarded the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in pay scale. The authority i,e, respondent No,1 had passed the present punitive order on 23-1-2007. The learned counsel contended that under Rule 1.8 of the Pension Rules departmental proceedings could not be instituted after more than a year from the date of retirement of the pensioner. This would mean that the proceedings instituted before the expiry of one year may and could be completed after a period of one year. However the learned counsel for the appellant referred to section 9-A of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 which was added vide Ordinance dated 9-10-2002. The said proviso fixed a period of one year for passing an order in exercise of suo motu powers as one year. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No,1709 of 2005 (Akbar Ali v.
Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab) wherein their Lordships had been pleased. To hold that the orders of imposition of major penalty beyond period of one year could not be passed under the law and the rules. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the then learned Chairman, Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No,2840 of 2004 decided on 2-6-2005 (Dr. F.M. Anjum Rahmani v. Secretary Information and another). The learned Chairman has discussed the provisions of section 9-A as also Rule 1.8 of the Pension Rules and has been pleased to hold that the punishment awarded to the civil servant could not be revised suo motu after a lapse of a period of one year. The learned Chairman held that intent of the law became absolutely manifest when the provisions of Rule 1.8 of Pensions Rules was read in conjunction with the said section 9-A of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 whereas under section 9-A the terminus period is provided whereas in the Pension Rules the proceedings could be commenced within a year from the date of retirement but no time was fixed for decision. The facts of the said case were also similar to the facts of the present case. In the said case also the appellant was awarded the penalty of censure whereas in exercise of powers under section 9-A of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 the said punishment was converted into major penalty of dismissal from service which was ordered beyond the date of one year and was consequently set aside by the learned Chairman. The learned counsel maintained that the facts of the present case were similar and identical with the facts of the case which came up for decision before the learned Chairman and the appeal was decided on 2-6-2005 as indicated above.
4. After hearing the arguments and going through the record and reading the provisions of Rule 1.8 of Pension Rules find that in case of Pension Rules no maximum limit was provided whereas under section 9-A of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 an upper time limit of one year for passing an order of enhancement of penalty was fixed. Under Rule 1.8 of the Pension Rules the only embargo is that the proceedings could not be initiated against the pensioner after one year of the pension whereas under section 9-A of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 it was provided that the orders of punishment should not be revised in exercise of suo motu powers after a lapse of a period of one year. The original order of the authority was passed on 31-3-2005 whereas Director General Excise and Taxation has enhanced the punishment vide orders dated 23-1-2007 after a lapse of about two years. Resultantly I accept the present appeal and while setting aside the orders of respondent No,1 dated 23-1-2007 the appellant is reinstated in service. The period during which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as leave of the kind due. 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.