M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).------In this case the appellant joined as Sub-Divisional Officer under the Government of the Punjab, Buildings Department on 16-7-1974. In 1974-75 the construction of bridge at Marh-- Chiniot Drain on the 50th mile on Jhang-Chiniot Road was complete under the supervision of the appellant.
2. In June 1975 it was noticed that the transom slab of the bridge was defective. The defect was noticed on 23-6-1976 by the successor of the appellant, as a result thereof the slabs were damaged by the on-rushing water and the steel bar was exposed. The matter was reported to the Executive Engineer concerned on 24-6-1976 who required the Contractor to repair the damage.
Simultaneously, he also requested the Superintending Engineer for inspection of the bridge. The S. E.
Called for the explanation of the Contractor who was also warned, The matter eventually came to the notice of the then Chief Minister, Punjab, on 25-6-1976 and the Technical Member of the Chief Minister's Inspection Team was directed to report in the matter, who on 1-7-1976 visited the spot and reported that the shuttering under the slab was defective and the water was absorbed by the sand leaving the concrete porous. The explanation of the appellant was also called. The appellant explained that the work was done at the end of the year when he was required to supervise many other ongoing projects and the supervision at the spot was in fact done by the Overseer concerned.
3. According to the report of the Inspection Team, the primary reason--sibility was of the Contractor concerned who admitted his fault. In the second place the Overseer was responsible and the present appellant being new to the job was inexperienced also, failed to exercise full control due to the rush of work. It was suggested by the Technical Member of the Chief Minister's Inspection Team that the appellant be treated leniently.
4. On 7-7-1976, the Secretary, Communications and Works Department, Punjab, suggested, on the basis of report of the Technical Member of C. M.'s Team that the Overseer, the appellant and the XEN were at fault and thus the proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, be taken up against them. The C. M., Punjab, however, directed the issuance of a show-cause notice to the appellant as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Eventually on 7-1-1977 the appellant was removed from service. His Review petition filed before the Appellate Authority remained undisposed.
The appellant has raised the following points:
(i) That no reasons have been assigned by the competent Authority to dispense with the enquiry;
(ii) That the Authorised Officer in his case was the Chief Engineer concerned, but he was not associated with the case at any stage which has caused material prejudice to the appellant.
Reliance was placed in this behalf on 1977 PLC (C. S. T.) 81 to contend that the entire proceedings were vitiated;
(iii) It was next contended that the personal hearing was not granted by the Secretary, C. & W., which also renders the order illegal;
(iv) On merits, it was submitted that the alleged defect in construction was not of serious nature. It was rather minor, as the time has proved that even after the lapse of six years, the bridge has worked well. It was also contended that the appellant failed to be personally present at the time of construction due to rush of work which included other running projects and it was almost the close of the financial year;
(v) The appellant also placed reliance upon the report of the Member (Technical) of Chief Minister's Inspection Team, who had suggested that the appellant deserved to be treated leniently.
But the C. M., Punjab, did not appear to have taken into consideration the views of the Member (Technical); and
(vi) Lastly, it was submitted that the punishment in any case was excessive, as the appellant was inexperienced and this was first lapse and therefore, the charge of inefficiency could not be maintained against the appellant. Reliance was also placed in this behalf on PLD 1977 2 SC 182.
6. With these submissions the appellant submitted that the appeal be accepted and the sentence be set aside or in any case it be suitably reduced.
7. Mr. A. G. Humayun, the Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the Executive Engineer, Muhammad Anwar and Overseer Munir Ahmad were also dealt with jointly in the same case by the Govern--ment. Since in the case of the X. E. N., the Authorised Officer and the Competent Authority was the Government, therefore, by virtue of rule 2 of the E. & D. Rules, 1975, the objection of the appellant as to be dealt with by the Chief Engineer concerned as Authorised Officer, was not tenable.
8. As regards the objection as to the enquiry, the Government Pleader pointed out that the Chief Minister, Punjab, by an express order, had himself directed the issuance of show-cause notice. He also pointed out that on facts the Inspection Team's report proved the fault and in fact the defect in construction was never disputed by the appellant. As regards the quantum of punishment, it was submitted that in view of the defence, the Government was justified to impose the punishment which by no means is excessive.
9. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the legal objection raised by the appellant has no substance. The appellant along with the Executive Engineer was jointly accused of the defective supervision. Admittedly, in the case of X. E. N,, the Competent Authority as well as the Authorised Officer was the Government. Thus the appellant could not avail of the objection that' the case could have been. Entrusted to the Chief Engineer, as. Authorised Officer. Similarly, there were sufficient grounds for dispensing with the enquiry as the defect in the construction of bridge was not seriously disputed before us.
10. As regards the quantum of punishment, we are inclined to agree with the appellant .Hat the same is excessive. The fact that the appellant was inexperienced and new to the job and that he had been entrusted with the supervision of other projects also, was not disputed before us. Even the Member (Technical), Chief Minister's Inspection Team, suggested a lenient treatment to the appellant and the fact that the bridge was still serving satisfactorily lends support to appellant's case that the defect was not a major one. In our view it would meet with the ends of justice, if the appellant's increments for two years were withheld (without future effect) he was also administered a warning. We also direct that the appellant will get only half of the salary for the period he remained out of service.
11. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and the impugned order is modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.