Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Muhammad Azhar was appointed as Store Keeper in BS-7.
On the charge of producing domicile from Sindh (whereas earlier, at the time of appointment as Dispenser, he had submitted domicile from Punjab) he was awarded the penalty of reduction to lower post of Dispenser vide .order dated 25.05.2011 under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. His departmental appeal dated 08.06.2011 was rejected on 16.08,2011.
2. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 11.12.2010 that at the time of his appointment as Dispenser he had submitted his domicile from Punjab but thereafter had illegally changed it from Punjab to Sindh for his appointment to the post of Store Keeper in BS-7. He was thus accused of misconduct and violation of Establishment Division's O.M. dated 20.09.1971 to the effect that domicile once given could not be changed.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is staled that the appellant had been awarded the penalty in question strictly in accordance with law.
4. We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The appellant had not been promoted to the post of store, Keeper. He had in fact been appointed to that post. Whenever a person is appointed to a certain post he cannot be given the penalty of reduction to lower post. It appears to us that the penalty in question had been awarded to the appellant since it was presumed that he had been appointed as Store Keeper on the basis of his earlier appointment in the department as a Dispenser. The penalty would have been relevant only had there been no fresh appointment of the appellant as Store Keeper and he had in fact been promoted from Dispenser to Store Keeper. For all intents and purposes it was his fresh appointment as Store Keeper on the basis of fresh advertisement. Hence he could not be given penalty of reduction to the post of Dispenser, originally held by him.
6. As observed above, the post of Store Keeper (BS-7) was advertised. It was a fresh appointment.
The appellant had a right to get his domicile changed from Punjab to Sindh and to apply for the post of Store Keeper. The domicile for Faisalabad was issued to him on 06.07.1978. The appellant had been appointed as Dispenser on 28.05.1986. At that time his domicile was from Punjab.
However, for his fresh appointment as Store Keeper he had obtained a domicile from Karachi.
Getting his domicile from Punjab cancelled and obtaining domicile from Sindh was not an act of illegality on the part of the appellant. A lawful process had been adopted by the Government of Sindh in issuing him a fresh domicile from that Province. Hence for change of domicile, lawfully allowed by the Government, the appellant could not be given any penalty.
7. For the above reasons, we hold that the penalty of reduction to the lower post of Dispenser awarded to the appellant vide order dated 25.05.2011 was not legal. It is set aside. The appellant stands restored as Store Keeper from the date of penalty with benefits.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.