As common questions of law and facts are involved in the following appeals, hence the same are being disposed of through this single order:--
(i) Shafique Ahmed Chaudhry Vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No, 1387/ 2010);
(ii) Khalid Iqbal Vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1400/2010); (iii)Ashfaque Cheema Vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1447/2010);
(iv) Muhammad Ilyas Vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1448/2010);
(v) Tahir Mehmood Vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1449/2010);
(vi) Amir Sami Khan Vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No, 1450/2010);
(vii) Ehsan Qadar Vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No, 1451/2010);
(viii) Tariq Rasheed Vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1452/2010);
(ix) Ahmad Khan Khokhar Vs Chief Secretary, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1453/2010);
(x) Farman Ali Vs Chief Secretary, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1454/2010);
(xi) Muhammad Saeed Vs Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No, 1455/2010);
(xii) Salamat Hussain Vs Chief Secretary, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1456/2010);
(xiii) Javed Anwar Vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No, 1457/2010);
(xiv) Muhammad Ashraf Shahid Vs Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1458/2010);
(x) Ghulam Murtaza Balouch Vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1462/2010);
(xvi) Mahboo6-ul-Hassan Vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1492/2010);
(xvii) Akhtar Ali Vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1493/2010); (xviii) Waseem Ahmad Vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1494/2010);
(xix) Rana Khalid Mahmood Vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No, 1495/2010); (xx)Haider Zaman Khan Vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore etc. (Service Appeal No,1496/2010);
2. All the appellants who are employees of Irrigation & Power Department, Government of Punjab were proceeded against departmentally being guilty of misconduct and negligent in the performance of their duties under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
Although each appellant was served separate charge sheet yet the gist of charge against all the appellants is that on account of their inefficiency, misconduct and corruption arising out of financial and codal irregularities and embezzlement the Government had to suffer huge financial loss. All the appellants through separate replies denied the charges against them. An Inquiry Committee consisting of Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Chief Engineer (Power)/Convener Enquiry Committee, Mr. Moin-ud-Din Shah, Superintending Engineer, UJC, Jhelum and Ch. Asghar Hameed, Executive Engineer, Samundri Drainage Division, Faisalabad, as Members of Inquiry Committee was constituted. The said Inquiry Committee after completion of probe submitted its report and made recommendation against each appellant as follows:--
(i) Recovery of the loss proportionately
(ii) Dismissal from service except
(a) Mr. Khalid Iqbal, appellant in Appeal No, 1400 of 2010,
(b) Mr. Akhtar Ali, appellant in 1493 of 2010 and
(c) Mr. Mehboob-ul-Hassan, appellant in Appeal No,1492/2010 who were recommended penalty of compulsory retirement.
3. On receipt of above noted report of Inquiry Committee, the competent authority namely Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore issued final show-cause notice to all the appellants and also afforded them opportunity of personal hearing through a properly Constituted Committee. Consequently the competent authority vide order dated 16.9.2009 imposed various penalties on each of the appellant per details given below:-- {{TABLE}} Sr.No,Name of the appellantAppeal No,Penalty imposed
1. Ghulam Murtaza Baloch, Executive Engineer.1462/2010 Withholding of promotion for a period of three years alongwith recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs,99,64,379.41
2. Mr. Shafique Ahmed, SDO1387/2010 Withholding of promotion for a period of three years alongwith recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs,51,05,927.48
3. Mr. Haider Zaman Khan, SDO.1496/2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs,74,38,467.65
4. Mr. Khalid lqbal, SDO1400/2010 Withholding of promotion for two years alongwith recovery of 1/4th of the loss of Rs,4,28,608/-
5. Mr. Ashraf Shahid, SDO1458/2010 Withholding of promotion f three years alongwith rekey of 1/4 of the loss of Rs,64,38,882.00-
6. Mr. Tahir Mehmood, Sub Engineer.1449/2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs,28,32,517.91
7. Mr. Amir Sami Khan, Sub Engineer.1450/2010 Reduction to an initial stage in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 25,58,739.58
8. Mr. Akhtar Ali Sub Engineer.1493/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 9,19,616.66
9. Mr. Mehboob-ul- Hassan, Sub- Engineer1492/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 3,15,387.50 10.Mr. Wasim Ahmed, Sub Engineer1494/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4th th th th th th th of the loss of Rs, 1,84,490.60
11. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas, Sub Engineer1448/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 27,21,715.24 12.Mr. Ehsan Qadir Sub Engineer1451/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 25,08,301.80 13 Mr. Javed Anwar, Sub-Engineer1457/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 15,48,302.28 14.Mr. Ashfaq Cheema, Sub- Engineer1447/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 13,08,493.63 15.Mr. Tariq Rasheed, Sub- Engineer1452/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 13,03,077.44 16.Rana Khalil Mahmood Sub- Engineer1495/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/4 of the loss of Rs, 11,54,324.85 17.Mr. Farnan Ali, Store Keeper.1454/2010 Recovery of 1/8 of the loss of Rs, 66,68,175.15 18.Mr. Muhammad Saeed. Store Keeper1455/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/8 of the loss of Rs, 61,85,255.11 19.Mr. Ahmad Khan Khokhar, Store Keeper.1453/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/8 of the loss of Rs, 61,85,255.11 20 Mr. Salamat Hussain, Store Keeper.1456/2010 Reduction to an initial state in pay scale alongwith recovery of 1/8 of the loss of Rs, 1,90,62,310.67th th th th th th th th th th {{TABLE}}
4. However, it would not be out of place to mention here that in its own wisdom and for unknown reasons, same competent authority i,e, Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore on 15.92009 through a separate order imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments upon Rana Asif Mehmood, Executive Engineers, Mirza Aslam Baig, Executive Engineer, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu, SDO and Mr. Irshad-ul-Haq, Sub-Engineer whereas exonerated Mr. Shafique Ahmad Khan, Sub-Engineer from the charges although all the above noted civil servants were recommended by the Inquiry Committee penalty of dismissal from service alongwith recovery of 1/4th of the financial loss. All the appellants filed departmental appeals separately against the above mentioned order of competent authority but the same were dismissed by the Chief Secretary. Govt. of Punjab, Lahore on 20.4.2010 being the appellate authority.
5. All the present appeals comprised following four sets of employees i,e, Executive Engineer, Sub- Divisional Officers, Sub-Engineer and Store Keepers and the same are being decided as follows:-- Store Keepers {{TABLE}} Sr. No, Appeal No, Name of Appellant Designation
1. 1453/2010 Ahmad Khan Khokhar Store Keeper
2. 1454/2010 Farman -do-
3. 1455/2010 Muhammad Saeed -do-
4. 1456/2010 Salamat Hussain -do- {{TABLE}}
6. All the above noted four appellants were performing their respective duties as Store Keeper and all were proceeded against on the following charges:--
1. Huge and excessive expenditure incurred during financial year 2002-2003 without any lawful authority and proper control/check.
(i) You, with the connivance of Executive Engineer and SDO have managed to procure stock articles in bulk & huge quantity of spare parts and POL in excessive of the actual requirement for machines/vehicles etc. which resulted in misappropriation and embezzlement of this material.
Moreover there was no such capacity for proper storages, especially of P.O.L.
POL procured Rs,1,47,00,262/- (ii)You, with the connivance of Sub-Engineer/SDO/XEN managed to issue huge & bulk quantity of POL worth Rs,1,53,73,669/78 Ps during the year 2002-2003 resulting in heavy loss to manufacture account and leading to embezzlement of this material. This factitious issue of spare parts/POL booked to machines, which was finally withdrawn and placed in Misc. Advance of officers/official to conceal misappropriation and embezzlement.
2. The following documents were found incomplete and incorrectly maintained.
(i) The scrap of spare parts issued have not been properly taken on scrap register as per details/units of issued material. In many cases the scrap have been accounted for/taken on scrap register in weight instead of original unit (in number) of material issued from stock register just to conceal the huge quantum of material issued which in fact have been embezzled/ misappropriated. The scrap material have neither been put to physical verification nor the scrap register was produced, which clearly indicates that these are merely paper transaction to embezzle/misappropriate Government funds,
(ii) The practice of annual physical verification and preparation of yearly and half yearly returns of Stock, scrap and T&P articles have not been exercised at all, which is the for most obligations under codal rule to, check misappropriation and excessive purchase/issue and epilation of stock, a crime according to Account Code.
3. Storage of POL was in-appropriate and does not tally with the storage capacity.
Storage of POL was not properly maintained. Huge & Excessive quantity of POL have been managed to procure un-necessarily without consideration of storage capacity and monthly consumption, whereas it is all the time readily available' in the market. Thus Providing chances for misappropriation! embezzlement leading to a huge loss to public exchequer. The withdrawal of the excessive expenditure originally booked to machines and finally placed in the Misc. Advances of Officers/Officials is merely paper transaction to conceal the embezzlement, which also certifies these corrupt and malpractices prevailed therein.
4. The POL stores at Sub-Divisional Headquarter were poorly maintained at the residences of Storekeeper/in the field without any lawful authority and without keeping in view the storage capacity, security and watch & ward for safe custody of consumable items and same is the position regarding other material at site and scrap parts in the field and at the residences at Sub- Divisional Headquarters which is a serious slackness and resulted in heavy loss to public exchequer.
5. The Sub-Division has done purchase of spare parts and POL without calling tenders.
(i) With connivance of SDO/XEN a huge and excessive quantity of lubricants (which are not rate contract items), appearing in the books of account for the year 2002-2003 have been shown purchased and payments are made without calling tenders/ quotations.
(ii) Similarly huge & excessive quantity of spare parts have been procured with your connivance, without calling tender and publishing in Newspaper for wide publicity for competitive rate, violating all the Codal Rules.
(iii)You, with the connivance of SDO/XEN managed to purchase bulk material/spares parts by splitting to avoid tendering and giving proper publicity to favour the contractors.
(iv)Moreover one and same items have been purchased with different nomenclatures to avoid exceeding the limit of financial powers of purchase of each item under rules."
7. The Inquiry Officer as well as the competent authority treated all the above Store Keepers/appellants on the same footing alongwith other appellants who were either Executive Engineers, Sub-Divisional Officers or Sub-Engineers and were extended penalty of reduction to an initial stage in pay scales alongwith recovery of 1/8th of the loss notwithstanding the fact that none of these persons were either deputed for the job of excavation, operation of excavation machines, checking of quality and quantity of purchased material and their job was only to enter the purchased material in the goods receipt sheet as well as stock register. If there was huge and excessive expenditures during the disputed financial year without any lawful authority etc. neither it was the function of Storekeepers to purchase spare parts nor the same were purchased by the appellants without calling tenders but the Inquiry Committee as well as competent authority held present appellants/ Storekeepers guilty of said charges. Another important factor is that while holding appellants guilty of misappropriation neither the Inquiry Committee nor the competent authority looked into the glaring omission about any evidence to this effect. On Court query Departmental Representative as well as learned Deputy District Attorney frankly' conceded that the only evidence on the question of financial loss to the public exchequer was the statement prepared by Mr. Zafar Ullah Bhatti, Executive Engineer and submitted before the Inquiry Committee withcut any corroborative evidence i,e, statement of maker of the said statement namely Zafar Ullah Bhatti before the Inquiry Committee and affording opportunity of cross-examination to the appellants. I am afraid such like evidence can be considered as a valid evidence. There is not an iota of evidence to this effect and on the basis of report of expert from the record prepared by Mr. Zafar Ullah Bhatti not only without providing copy in advance to the appellants which was prepared in their absence and not getting the same proved through a proper manner without cross-examination can be considered as a legal and valid evidence. I, therefore, feel that none of the Storekeepers/appellants could be held responsible for the acts committed by their high-ups including XEN, SDOs and Sub-Engineers. No evidence on the record to prove that any of the Storekeeper/appellant made entry without verifying vouchers/ receipts regarding purchase of relevant material. If some receipt/voucher was forged by XEN, SDO or Sub-Engineer but was properly verified by them in the present administrative set up Storekeepers cannot refuse to enter the same in the record.
8. As a result of above discussions, I feel that the charge against appellants/Storekeepers were not only irrelevant but' also not proved through sufficient evidence. There is no allegation against any of the appellant that either he himself purchased the material or found guilty of embezzlement as alleged by the competent authority.
9. Resultantly all the above appeals are allowed and the appellants/Storekeepers are exonerated of the charge. Executive Engineer {{TABLE}} Sr. No,Appeal No, Name of appellant Designation
1. 1462/2010Ghulam Murtaza Balouch ExecutiveEngineer {{TABLE}} 10.Ghulam Murtaza Balouch, Executive Engineer, above appellant alongwith Rana Asif Mehmood and Mirza As/am Baig, Executive Engineers were proceeded against on the charge of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption arising out of committing financial/codal irregularities while posted in Excavator Division, Faisalabad. All the three named persons were after completion of inquiry recommended by the Inquiry Officer imposition of penalty of dismissal from service as well as recovery of 1/4th of the financial loss as according to the report of Inquiry Committee they were equally found guilty of the above noted charges. The competent authority on receipt of said report and after affording opportunity of hearing through final show-cause notice imposed penalty of withholding of promotion for a period of three years alongwith recovery of 1./4th of the loss through order dated 16.9.2009 upon the present appellant but strange enough through a separate order dated 15.9.2009 despite holding Rana Asif Mehmood and Mirza Aslam Baig, Executive Engineers equally guilty of the charges of negligence and loose administrative control etc. but imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments only upon them. As noted above the appellant filed departmental appeal before the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab who dismissed the same on 20.4.2010.
11.At the very outset learned Counsel for the appellant Ghulam Murtaza Balouch, by referring to the case of Mirza Aslam Baig and Rana Asif Mehmood, Executive Engineers, strongly argued and rightly so that there was neither any special reason nor justification for the competent authority to have imposed different penalties upon the appellant as well as Rana Asif Mehmood and Mirza Aslam Baig, Executive Engineers after holding all of them equally guilty of negligent and loose administrative control upon the subordinate staff, therefore, according to learned. Counsel, appellant was extended discriminatory treatment by the authorities below in the matter of punishment and the same being in violation of provisions of Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and also the law declared by the apex Court in 2009 SCM R 187 and 2005 SCM R 445, 499. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that there is no iota of evidence on the record to attribute the charge of causing financial loss to the public exchequer except statement prepared by Zafar Ullah Bhatti, Executive Engineer who neither appeared in the witness box nor was subject to cross-examination. According to learned Counsel the penalty of causing financial loss was also imposed in discriminatory and without considering the length of posting during the disputed period which according to him comes to only 30 days as against period of Rana Asif Mehmood and Mirza Aslam Baig i,e, 4 months and 12 days who also remained posted for a period of more than the appellant, therefore on this score also the imposition of penalty of recovery on the appellant without any evidence was not maintainable.
12.On the other hand, this appeal has been opposed by learned Deputy District Attorney as well as Departmental Representative. However, none of them was able to controvert the above noted contention of learned Counsel for the appellant rather according to record for establishing financial loss of the appellant the admission position is that except statement prepared by Zafar Ullah Bhatti no other evidence was produced and the said statement was also not got proved through its author named above nor he was subject to cross-examination and on this score also the statement so prepared and placed on record cannot be considered as admissible evidence and for this reason alone penalty of recovery of amount against the appellant is not sustainable being without evidence.
Further in view of finding of Inquiry Committee holding Rana Asif Mehmood and Mirza Aslam Baig, equally responsible for the charge and non-imposition of penalty of recovery against these two persons also lead me to conclude that at least the penalty of recovery as imposed on the appellant was not within the lawful authority. I also find a considerable force in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant was extended discriminatory treatment in the matter of punishment. While imposing penalty of withholding of two -annual increments only on Rana Asif Mehmood and Mirza Aslam Baig despite being placed in similar facts and circumstances alongwith the appellant, the competent authority acted in, sheer violation of the provisions of Article 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 providing every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and also guaranteeing equal protection of law in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution as also held by the apex Court in the above noted judgment.
13. I am therefore satisfied that learned Counsel for the appellant has successfully made out a case of discrimination in the matter of punishment. As the penalty of recovery of amount imposed on the appellant was without evidence, therefore the same is set aside whereas in-line with the order of competent authority dated 15.9.2009 imposing penalty of stoppage of annual increment for two years as corrected by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab being appellate authority in his order dated 20.4.2010, the penalty of withholding of promotion for three years as imposed on the appellant is converted into penalty of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Order accordingly. Sub-Divisional Officers {{TABLE}} Sr. No,Appeal No, Name of appellant Designation
1. 1387/2010 Shafique Ahmad Chaudhry.Sub-Divisional Officer
2. 1400/2010 Khalid lqbal -do-
3. 1458/2010 Muhammad Ashraf Shahid -do-
4. 1496/2010 Haider Zaman Khan -do- {{TABLE}}
14. All the above four appellants/Sub-Divisional Officers alongwith Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu, Sub- Divisional Officer were proceeded against on the charge of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption arising out of committing financial/codal irregularities while posted in Excavator Sub-Division, Sheikhupura etc. All the five named persons were after completion of inquiry recommended by the Inquiry Officer imposition of penalty of dismissal from service as well as recovery of 1/4th of the financial loss as according to the report of Inquiry Committee they were equally found guilty of the above noted charges. The competent authority on receipt of said report and after affording opportunity of hearing through final show-cause notice imposed various penalties through order dated 16.9.2009 upon the present appellant but s range enough through a separate order dated 15.9.2009 despite holding Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu, SDO equally guilty of the charges but imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments only upon him. As noted above the appellants filed departmental appeals before the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab who dismissed the same on 20.4.2010.
15.At the very outset learned Counsel for the appellants by referring to the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu, Sub-Divisional Officers, strongly argued and rightly so that there was neither any special reason nor justification for the competent authority to have - imposed different penalties upon the appellants as well as Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu, SDO after holding all of them equally guilty of negligent etc. therefore, according to learned Counsel, appellants were extended discriminatory treatment by the authorities below in the matter of punishment and the same being in violation of provisions of Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and also the law declared by the apex Court in 2009 SCM R 187, 2005 SCM R 445, 499. Learned Counsel for the appellants further argued that there is no iota of evidence on the record to attribute the charge of causing financial loss to the public exchequer except statement prepared by Zafar Ullah Bhatti, Executive Engineer who neither appeared in the witness box nor was subject to cross-examination. According to learned Counsel the penalty of causing financial loss was also imposed in discriminatory and without considering the length of posting of each appellant during the disputed period which according to him comes less than the period of Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu i,e, 6 months and 16 days who also remained posted for a period of more than the present appellants. Moreover, the period of posting in case of appellant Khalid Iqbal in Appeal No,1400/2010 is only for one day, therefore on this score also the imposition of penalty of recovery etc. on the appellants without any evidence was not maintainable.
16.On the other hand, this appeal has been opposed by learned Deputy District Attorney as well as Departmental Representative. However, none of them was able to controvert the above noted contention of learned Counsel for the appellants rather according to record for establishing financial loss of the appellants the admission position is that except statement prepared by Zafar Ullah Bhatti no other evidence was produced and the said statement was also not got proved through its author named above nor he was subject to cross-examination and on this score also the statement so prepared and placed on record cannot be considered as admissible evidence and for this reason alone penalty of recovery of amount etc. against the appellants is not sustainable being without evidence. Further in view of finding of Inquiry Committee holding Ashraf Sindhu, SDO, equally responsible for the charge and non-imposition of penalty of recovery etc. against this person also lead me to conclude that at least the penalty of recovery as imposed on the appellants was not within the lawful authority. I also find a considerable force in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that appellants were extended discriminatory treatment in the matter of punishment While imposing penalty of withholding of two annual increments only on Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu despite being placed in similar facts and circumstances along-with the appellants, the competent authority acted in sheer violation of the provisions of Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 providing every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and also guaranteeing equal protection of law in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution as also held by the apex Court in the above noted judgment.
17. I am therefore satisfied that learned Counsel for the appellants have successfully made out a case of discrimination in the matter of punishment. As the penalty of recovery of amount imposed on the appellants was without evidence, therefore the same is set aside whereas in-line with the order of competent authority dated 15.9.2009 imposing penalty of stoppage of annual increment for two years as corrected by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab being appellate authority in his order dated 20.4.2010, the penalty of withholding of promotion/reduction to initial stage etc. imposed on the appellants is converted into penalty of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect whereas as the period of posting of Khalid Iqbal, appellant in Appeal No,1400/2010 is admittedly one day, therefore cannons of justice demands that the penalty as imposed on him by the competent authority and maintained by the appellate authority is reduced into 'Censure' only. Order accordingly. Sub- Engineers {{TABLE}} Sr.No, Appeal No, Name of appellant Designation
1. 1447/2010 Ashfaque Cheema Sub-Engineer 2.. 1448/2010 Muhammad Ilyas -do-
3. 1449/2010 Tahir Mehmood -do-
4. 1450/2010 Amir Sami Khan -do-
5. 1451/2010 Ehsan Qadar -do-
6. 1452/2010 Tariq Rasheed -do-
7. 1457/2010 Javed Anwar -
8. 1492/2010 Mehboob-ul-Hassan -do-
9. 1493/2010 Akhtar All -do-
10. 1494/2010 Waseem Ahmad -do-
11. 1495/2010 Rana Khalid Mahmood -do- {{TABLE}} 18.All the above eleven appellants/Sub-Engineers alongwith Irshad-ul-Haq, Sub-Engineer were proceeded against on the charge of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption arising out of committing financial/codal irregularities while posted in Excavator Division, Faisalabad. All the above named persons were after completion of inquiry recommended by the Inquiry Officer imposition of penalty of dismissal from service as well as recovery of 1/4th of the financial loss as according to the report of Inquiry Committee they were equally found guilty of the above noted charges. The competent authority on receipt of said report and after affording opportunity of hearing through final show-cause notice imposed various penalties through order dated 16.9.2009 upon the present appellants but strange enough through a separate order dated 15.9.2009 despite holding Irshad-ul-Haq, Sub-Engineer equally guilty of the charges but imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual increments only upon him. As noted above the appellants filed departmental appeals before the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab who dismissed the same on 20.4.2010.
19.At the very outset learned Counsel for the appellants by referring to the case of Irshad-ul-Haq, Sub-Engineer, strongly argued and rightly so that there was neither any special reason nor justification for the competent authority to have imposed different penalties upon the appellants as well as Irshad-ul-Haq, Sub-Engineer after holding all of them equally guilty of negligent etc. therefore, according to learned Counsel, appellants were extended discriminatory treatment by the authorities below in the matter of punishment and the same being in violation of provisions of Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and also the law declared by the apex Court in 2009 SCM R 187, 2005 SCM R 445, 499. Learned Counsel for the appellants further argued that there is no iota of evidence on the record to attribute the charge of causing financial loss to the public exchequer except statement prepared by Zafar Ullah Bhatti, Executive Engineer who neither appeared in the witness box nor was subject to cross-examination. According to learned Counsel the penalty of causing financial loss was also imposed in discriminatory and without considering the length of posting of each appellant during the disputed period which according to him is lesser period as against period of Irshad-ul-Haq, therefore on this score also the imposition of penalty of recovery etc. on the appellants without any evidence was not maintainable.
20.On the other hand, this appeal has been opposed by learned Deputy District Attorney as well as Departmental Representative. However, none of them was able to controvert the above noted contention of learned Counsel for the appellants rather according to record for establishing financial loss of the appellants the admission position is that except statement prepared by Zafar Ullah Bhatti no other 'evidence was produced and the said statement was also not got proved through its author named above nor he was subject to cross-examination and on this score also the statement so prepared and placed on record cannot be considered as admissible evidence and for this reason alone penalty of recovery of amount etc. against the appellants is not sustainable being without evidence. Further in view of finding of Inquiry Committee holding Irshad- ul-Haq, Sub-Engineer, equally responsible for the charge and non-imposition of penalty of recovery etc. against this person also lead me to conclude that at least the penalty of recovery as imposed on the appellants was not within the lawful authority. I also find a considerable force in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants that appellants were extended discriminatory treatment in the matter of punishment. While imposing penalty of withholding of two annual increments only on Irshad-ul-Haq despite being placed in similar facts and circumstances alongwith the appellants, the competent authority acted in sheer violation of the provisions of Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 providing every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and also guaranteeing equal protection of law in terms of Article 25 of the Constitution as also held by the apex Court in the above noted judgment.
21. I am therefore satisfied that learned Counsel for the appellants have successfully made out a case of discrimination in the matter of punishment. As the penalty of recovery of amount imposed on the appellants was without evidence, therefore the same is set aside whereas in-line with the order of competent authority dated 15.9.2009 imposing penalty of stoppage of annual increment for two years as corrected by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab being appellate authority in his order dated 20.4.2010, the penalty of withholding of promotion/reduction to initial stage etc. imposed on the appellants is converted into penalty of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Order accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.