Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Rao Gulsher Khan, Appraiser in the Customs Department, was awarded the penalty of stoppage of one increment vide order dated 24.12.2001. His departmental appeal was rejected on 05.03.2002. Hence this appeal.
2. The statement of allegations was issued to the appellant on 21.05.2001. It was alleged that his living style was beyond his known means of income. According to the respondents he was living in a posh area of Lahore Cantonment, maintaining a car and was paying excessive utility bills. It was also alleged that he was corrupt. The other allegation against him was that he had not submitted declaration of his assets. An inquiry committee was constituted comprising Mr. Muhammad Zahid, Additional Collector, Dr. Aftab Ahmed Bhatti, Deputy Collector and Mr. Usman Bajwa, Assistant Collector. However, this committee was reconstituted comprising M/s. Muhammad Zahid, Additional Collector, Kamal Azhar Minhas, Deputy Collector and Ms. Khola Raza, Assistant Collector.
The order for reconstitution of the committee was passed on 05.10.2001. In the inquiry report only charge of non-submission of assets was proved. The other remaining charges were not proved. On 08.04.2001 the appellant was granted personal hearing and thereafter the penalty in question was awarded to him.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
4. Very serious charges had been levelled against the appellant that he was corrupt and was living in a posh area of Lahore beyond his known means of income. These charges were not proved. The only charge proved against him was that he had failed to submit his declaration of assets. The record does not show that the appellant had even been warned for not filing statement of assets.
Under the rules he was definately required to file declaration of assets but if he had failed to do so he should have been directed by the Department to do so. In the circumstances we find that for non-submission of statement of assets the increment of the appellant should not have been stopped. He could be censured on that charge.
5. For the above reasons, we accept the appeal to the extent that the penalty of 'stoppage of one increment' awarded to the appellant is converted into 'censure'.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Parties shall be informed accordingly.