1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-----Pir Mohammad Yasin Chishti, Naib-Tehsildar was serving in May 1975 as Colony Naib-Tehsildar, Dunyapur, District Multan. He was charge-sheeted on two counts. The ADC(G) Multan was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Out of the two charges levied against him, the ADC(G) exonerated the appellant in the first charge relating to the loan of Rs. 5,500 said to have been obtained by the appellant out of the sale proceeds of property of Mr. Naseb Khan, a defaulter in payment of Agricultural Batik Loan, but found him guilty on the second charge which related to the sale of forms for five Marlas Plot Scheme. It is alleged that the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 10,020 were kept by him for a period of three months which amounted to temporary embezzlement. The Commissioner also held him guilty on this charge and on 12-10-76 ordered his removal from service. The appeal of the appellant to the Board of Revenue was also dismissed on 12-4-1977.
2. We have heard both the parties. The appellant contends that owing to the fact that his son was seriously ill, he was unable to deposit the said amount at the earliest. Moreover, he has given three lists of other pat--waries/Naib-Tehsildars/Tehsildars who had similarly failed to deposit amounts but no action was taken against them. He thus contends that the Department did not view similar default very seriously. This position was not disputed by the Department. There is no doubt that the Naib-- Tehsildar should have been more vigilant and deposited the money at the earliest but on account of the illness of his son he has not been able to do so. The conduct of the appellant indicated that it was a case of simple default involving no dishonest designs. He readily accepted the outstanding amount and in fact made the payment when called upon. Moreover, it appeared to be common practice with the officials of the Department to deposit the collections after quite some time. Keeping in view the A circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that the case did not call for extreme punishment. The appellant is a young man with no other serious complaint against him. In the circumstances, we think it to be a fit case for reduction of the penalty from that of removal from service to that of stoppage of two increments. We order accordingly.