' JUSTICE (RETD.). ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).--- Appellant Ghulam Nabi Saqi while posted as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Motor Registration Wing, Karachi was proceeded against departmentally under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000). He was served with a show-cause notice, dated 28-7-2004 issued by the Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department/Competent Authority, alleging therein that:-- "On the report of Director-General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise)
Government of Pakistan and in view of preliminary enquiry, you are, prima facie suspected to be involved in illegal registration of illegally possessed non-duty paid vehicles imported under Diplomatic Covers without proper verification i,e, production of N.O.C. Of Foreign Office and the scrutiny of documents of these vehicles had revealed that said vehicles were registered by Motor Registration Authority at Karachi, thus, depriving Government of millions of Rupees under custom's import duties and other charges/taxes"
Sr. No.Registration MarkDate of RegistrationTerminal ID 1 AEH-064 20-9-2002 117 2 BC-6586 9-9-2002 117 ' In his detailed reply, appellant denied the allegation and explained his position, which was considered and the Competent Authority was satisfied that the charge of misconduct mentioned in the said show-cause notice was partially proved against the appellant, as such, vide order, dated 26-11-2004, appellant was awarded penalties of (i) stoppage of two annual increments and
(ii) withholding of promotion for a period of two years. Against which, appellant preferred departmental appeal to the Chief Minister, Sindh on 24-12-2004 and on getting no response within stipulated period of 60 days, appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
2. Mr. Moula Bukhsh Khoso, learned counsel for the appellant argued all the requisite formalities and information coupled with verification of documents were made before registering the two vehicles. He stated that on receipt of bill of entry the concerned A.E.T.O. (Verification) transmitted the same vide' letter No,AETO/Ver/MR/350/ 2002, dated 14-9-2002 to the Assistant Controller Appraisement VIII, Custom House, Karachi for verification and report, which was received as per letter No,I/VIII/SC/288/2002, dated 16-2-2002 duly signed by Raja Waseem Ahmed, Appraising Officer, K.C.H. Code No,520 and Iftikhar Mehmood Principal Appraiser, Customs House, Karachi, which verification was confirmed by the concerned A.E.T.O. And on completion of requisite formalities the two vehicles were registered therefore, there was no illegality, irregularity or any negligence on the part of appellant. The full revenue in the shape of fee/tax was recovered, thus, the Government suffered no monetary loss. Further, learned counsel contended that as a matter of fact the only duty of Motor Registration Wing was to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the documents placed before it from the authorities concerned including Customs Authorities and that if the vehicles were imported duty free for diplomats/Embassies it was for the Customs Authorities to point out the same and to get N.O.C. From Foreign Office and since the Custom Authorities failed to point out such fact and get the requisite N.O.C. From Foreign Office, the appellant and the other staff of Motor Registration Wing could not be held responsible. Learned counsel also stated that no regular inquiry was ordered/ conducted, while in the fact finding inquiry no responsibility was placed either on appellant or any other official/officer of Motor Registration Wing of Excise and Taxation Department, thus, the penalty awarded to appellant is not sustainable. Besides, he argued that under the law two penalties, may be minor, of distinct nature cannot be imposed upon any civil servant, therefore, on this score also, the impugned order is neither maintainable nor sustainable.
3. Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate-General while referring the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No,2 duly adopted by respondent No,1 has argued that appellant registered the vehicles viz. Toyota Corolla Car having Chassis No,CE-113-200-2399, Engine No,3C-3717042 and another Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep having Chassis No,KZJ 9-0036130, Engine No,IKZ-0126985 and assigned them Registration Nos.AEH-064 and BC-65876 respectively. The Toyota Corolla Car (AEH- 064) was imported in the name of Mr. Fayyaz A. Abhasi, Embassy of Syrian Arab Republic, Islamabad vide Exemption Certificate No,744, dated 21-3-2002 while Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep (BC- 65876) was imported in the name of Mrs. Isabells Hentic Rendot, High Commissioner, Canada vide Exemption Certificate No,244, dated 1-2-2002, therefore, Motor Registration Wing was bound to obtain N.O.C. From Foreign Office so also verification of payment/clearance of all Customs and other duties, in compliance of the standing Instruction of Excise and Taxation Department. She next contended that the Federal Government allowed exemption from payment of Federal levies due to import under diplomatic covers, but the vehicles were not transferable in the name of any other person without N.O.C. Of Foreign Office and payment of Federal levies, as such registration of these vehicles by appellant caused heavy financial loss to the Government and for that reason appellant was rightly proceeded against departmentally and penalized, therefore, impugned order being legal and proper calls for no interference and may be maintained.
4. We have considered the above submissions and perused the case papers placed on record by both the parties. Perusal of the record reveals that on receipt of bill of entry for the purpose of registration of vehicles the same was transmitted by Mr. Muhammad Murad Khaskheli, A.E.T.O.
(Verification) Motor Registration Authority, Karachi to the Assistant Collector/Appraisement VIII, Customs House, Karachi vide letter No,AETO/VER/MR/350/2002, dated 14-9-2002 for verification of bill of entry/import permit. The said bill of entry contained full particulars that the same were imported ih the name of Mr. Fayyaz A. Absi, Minister, Embassy of Syrian Arab Republic duly exempted. The said bill of entry was duly verified by Mr. Iftikhar Mahmood, Principal Appraiser and Raja Wasim Ahmed, Appraising Officer, Custom House, Karachi which verification letter was further verified by Mr. Muhammad Murad Khaskheli, A.E.T.O. (Verification) M.R. Wing, Karachi and thereafter the same were registered by appellant. Since the Customs Authorities were fully aware of the fact that the vehicles were imported under diplomatic covers, therefore, it was their responsibility to get further verification from Foreign Office and not of the Motor Registration Wing. It also appears that Motor Registration Wing had not suppressed any fact from the Customs Authorities, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that appellant was involved in illegal registration of these vehicles.
5. Besides, appellant was proceeded against departmentally on the report of Director-General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) Government of Pakistan as is evident from the show-cause notice, dated 28-7-2004 issued to appellant by the respondent No,2. On the said letter, the respondent No,2 directed the Director Legal/HQ to hold inquiry and send findings and recommendations. The Director Legal, Headquarters, conducted fact finding inquiry and submitted his report to the respondent No,2 vide No,GEN(022)/2003-04/CUS/312, dated 3-3-2004. In page 2 of the said report, it has been observed that:--- "Enquiry has been conducted and the following officers/officials were called and examined:--
(1) Mr. Abdul Rehman Rajar, E.T.O., (2) Mr. Saeed Shahid Hussain, E.T.O., (3) Mr. Ghulam Nabi Saqi, A.E.T.O., (4) Mr. Hilal Ahmed, A.E.T.O., (5) Mr. Ali Akbar Durrani, A.E.T.O., (6) Mr. Khawaja Maqbool, E.T.I.,
(7) Mr. Fawad Shah, E.T.I., (8) Syed Zia Shah, E.T.I.
' All the above named officers/officials appeared before the undersigned and reordered their statements as per Annexures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8. From the perusal of their statements it transpired that they have registered vehicles after adopting proper codal formalities which include the verification from Customs Authorities. All the above officers/officials have stated that after registration of the vehicles they had handed over the original files of the Registration to the owners of the vehicles respectively."
' In the last page of the inquiry report, it has been observed that;_-- "From the perusal of statement of Mr. Siraj it is quite evident that Consulate/Embassy has sold/disposed of the vehicle in breach of condition of S.R.O. Under which they were granted exemption from Customs duty. So main responsibility lies on the embassy persons. Had ever they not sold or disposed off the vehicle, there had been no problem. In Motor Registration Wing the owner came and get their vehicles registered. It is the responsibility of the Motor Registration Authority to seek verification from Customs Department in case the vehicle belongs to Embassy and they have done it and reference of customs is entered in the computer slip as attached with Annexures "12, 13, 14, 15, 16". This reveals that the staff of MR has not committed any violation.
' I tried my best and requested the Director Customs and Intelligence to produce the relevant box files through his representative as the same were taken into custody when the vehicles were seized but no response has been received.
' Keeping in view the above facts I am of the opinion that:
(i) Basic breach is from embassy side. They sold/disposed off vehicle right or wrong, MR is not concerned.
(ii) Verification has been made from the Customs Department by the Motor Registration Authorities and no illegality has been committed by them.
(iii) The vehicles have been seized by the Customs Department, therefore, no loss has been sustained by the Government.
(iv) Motor Registration Authority handed over the original file of vehicle to its owner according to the Policy of Government nothing adverse can be detected till the original files are not produced.
(v) I have directed the Motor Registration Authority to cancel the Motor Registration immediately or bound them to seek prior permission from Director (MR) in case of the Registration of Embassy Vehicles."
' As per inquiry report referred to above, appellant was not found involved in any illegality or gross irregularity. It has been contended that in the absence of N.O.C. Of Foreign Office the vehicles were not transferable in the name of any other person and admittedly no such N.O.C. Was obtained from Foreign Office. Be that as it may, but in fact the duty of getting verification of documents was of Mr. Muhammad Murad Khaskheli, A.E.T.O. (Verification) Motor Registration Wing and not that of appellant. At the most appellant could have enquired from A.E.T.O. (Verification) about N.O.C. Of Foreign Office, but for that simple lapse on the part of the appellant, the two penalties i,e, of withholding of promotion and stoppage of increments were very much harsh. Even otherwise two penalties of different and ,distinct nature, may be minor, are not permissible under the rules. In the given circumstances and the material placed before us, minor penalty of "Censure" was sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
6. Accordingly, the minor penalties of stoppage of two annual increments and withholding of promotion for a period of two years are converted to that of minor penalty of "Censure". With the above modification in the impugned order, dated 26-11-2004, the appeal stands disposed off.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
7. Announced in open Court.