SALIM GUL SHAIKH (MEMBER).--- This appeal has been filed against the order dated 6-3-2003, whereby major penalty of "reduction to lower post of auditor" has been imposed against the appellant under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter to be mentioned as RSO).
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that departmental proceedings were started against the appellant vide order dated 22-4-2001 whereby the competent authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to scrutinize his conduct in response to a complaint filed by a business house Tulip International. The appellant reportedly submitted the defence reply to the charged levelled against him. Later, however, fresh inquiry was ordered with the appointment of a new inquiry officer who served the charge-sheet on the appellant vide order dated 6-9-2002. The charges levelled against the appellant were, however, the same. The appellant duly submitted his reply to the fresh charge- sheet in which he refuted the allegations. On receiving the inquiry report, the competent authority served show-cause notice dated 22-11-2002 upon the appellant under xhe RSO. Finding the defence reply as not satisfactory, the competent authority imposed the penalty of reduction from the post of senior auditor to the lower post of auditor upon the appellant vide order dated 6-3- 2003. His departmental representation dated 25-3-2003 also did not find favour with the authorities and was rejected vide appellate order dated 5-5-2003.
3. In his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned order on the grounds that: (a) he could not be demoted to a lower post in view of the judgments reported in NLR 1982 Ser. 272 and 2009 SCMR 412 because he was appointed directly as senior auditor in BS-16, (b) the penalty order was in derogation of FR-29 because the duration for demotion had not been specified as held in the judgments reported in 2008 SCMR 1165=2008 PLC (C.S.) 1161, PLD 2008 SC 392 and 2006 PLC (C.S.) 1259, 2009 PLC (C.S.) 833 second inquiry was not warranted as the complainant had withdrawn his complaint, and finally, the inquiry officer did not record the statements of witnesses.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, had vehemently opposed the appeal on the grounds that the departmental proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the rules. He also pointed out that appointment of the second inquiry officer was necessitated because the power to act as the authority was delegated to the Member vide notification dated 10-1-2002. As such the Inquiry Officer issued earlier was incompetently issued.
5. We have heard the arguments from learned counsel appearing for parties and have also carefully perused the record. The case of the appellant rests primarily on three averments; (a) punishment of demotion was not tenable in the eyes of law because the appellant was appointed as senior auditor (BS-16) directly, (b) there has been violation of FR-29 because the period of punishment has not been specified, and (c) the inquiry officer has not recorded the statements of witnesses.
6. We have carefully perused the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant with regards to the averment at (a) above. We find that the cited authorities clearly support the legal question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are therefore inclined to accept his contention on this point.
7. The next question raised by the learned counsel about the duration of the punishment is also clearly visible from the impugned order and therefore finds favour with us as it is violative of FR-29.
8. We, however, hold a different view with regards to the averment about the inquiry report. A simple reading of the said report shows that it is quite comprehensive and has been painstakingly prepared. The allegations which required the statement of witnesses have been handled accordingly, which include the statement of the elder brother of the appellant as well as the inspector Abdul Aziz who testified that the appellant was found sitting at the car show-roqm, which was his family business, during office hours instead of performing duty in the office. However, the allegations pertaining to audit work was verifiable from the record and therefore has been addressed accordingly.
9. The inquiry report, however, does not clear the appellant from the charges of accepting bribe which is a serious misconduct. Since the matter has been under litigation for a long time, we are not inclined to prolong it any further. The appellant has undergone the punishment for sufficient time. Appellant should have been restored if the respondents had acted in accordance with FR-29 by specifying the duration of the penalty. But in this case the appellant was appointed in the same grade/post and therefore could not have been reduced to a lower post. This appeal has been lingering for almost 6 years. Since the punishment imposed on the appellant was not in accordance with the law, we propose to modify it instead of initiating the process all over again.
10. In view of the foregoing, we partly accept the appeal by modifying the punishment of "reduction to lower post of auditor" to "stoppage of one increment for a period of one year." Resultantly the appeal is disposed of in above terms.
11. Parties to be informed in accordance with rule 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.