' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Shamsher Abbas, Naib-Tehsildar has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Member (Revenue Establishment) Board of Revenue' Punjab, Lahore as Respondent. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the minor punishment so awarded to him be set aside and he be acquitted honourably of the charges so levelled against him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Ramzan, son of Ismail Khan, caste Rajput, resident of village Maddo Sarai, Tebsil and District Gujranwala applied for restoration of tenancy. His application was marked on 21st July 1973 to the appellant for necessary enquiry and report in this case. The report of Halqa Patwari dated 29th June 1973 was also appended with the application testifying the correctness of the contents of Muhammad Ramzan's claim but no action was taken by the appellant till 4th May, 1974. Muhammad Ramzan made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala and agitated against for this delay of one year and attributed ulterior motives to against the appellant. When the appellant was apprised of this situation he hurriedly completed the record sheet and wrote interlocutary orders in order to show that Muhammad Ramzan was not available at various occasions and, therefore, was himself responsible for the delay which occurred in his case. The appellant Revenue Officer was charge-sheeted by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, and the E A. C. (Rev.) was deputed to hold departmental enquiry vide endorsement No, 250/398/198 dated 16th January, 1975. Prosecution evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and relevant record was examined by him.
According to the Enquiry Officer who splitted the charges into for categories, and only the charge No. 1 stood proved against him, whereas the other charges in his opinion were not supported with any cogent evidence. He submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala. The Deputy Commissioner who was only required to transmit the enquiry report to the Commissioner, Lahore Division, inadvertently reported that all the charges stood proved against the appellant. The Commissioner, Lahore Division issued a show-cause, notice under rule 9 of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 in which it was stated that Charges Nos. 1 and 2 stood proved against him and the appellant appeared to be guilty of misconduct and inefficiency in the discharge of his official duties. He was required to show cause why minor penalty mentioned under rule 4 of the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1960 may not be awarded to him. The appellant submitted his reply to the said Show- Cause Notice denying all the charges against him. Meanwhile Mr. Anwar Zahid, Commissioner, Lahore Division was transferred and his successor Mr. Khalid Javed issued an amended Show Cause Notice against the appellant in which be was asked to show cause as to why a major penalty of dismissal from service may not be awarded to him. Meanwhile Mr. Khalid Javed, Commissioner Lahore Division who was transferred and the case was put up before Mr. Muhammad Afzal Kahut who held the appellant guilty of all the charges and reduced him to three stages lower in the time scale (a major penalty). The matter went before the Member, Board of Revenue who vide his order dated 26th February 1980 set aside the judgment of the Commissioner, Lahore Division dated 3rd July 1979 but withheld increment of the appellant with cumulative effect for a period of next two years under rule 4(1) (b) of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have perused the departmental enquiry report by E.A.C.
(Rev) Gujeanwala, the first charge-sheet issued by Mr. Anwar Zahid, Commissioner, Lahore Division, the amended charge issued by Mr. Khalid Javed, Commissioner, and the judgment of the Commissioner, Lahore Division dated 3rd July 1979. We have the benefit of going through the decision of Mr. S. M. Nasim, Member (Rey. Establishment) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dated 26th February 1980 in appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division. It is established fact on the record that the E.A.C. Gujranwala the Enquiry Officer in this case found the appellant guilty of one charge only i,e, the delay. There is no other enquiry conducted by any other officer which would conclusively prove the charge of maneipulating interlocutary orders or other charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. It seems that the learned Commissioner while amending the charge-sheet was definitely influenced by the observations of the Deputy Commissioner who, without going through the enquiry report carefully, erroneously reported that all the charges against the appellant stood proved. It would be pertinent to observe that under the rules the Deputy Commissioner was nowhere authorised to make his observations on the Enquiry Officer's report. In all fairness he was only required to submit the case to the Commissioner. In or view these unwarranted remarks were responsible for amendment of the charge and ultimate award o major punishment to the appellant. While going through the judgment of the Commissioner we also find that there was no data before him to conclude that the charge of manipulation of interlocutary orders stood fully proved against the appellant. The net result would be that the only charge which the appellant cannot escape is the delay in finalizing the case of Muhammad Ramzan. We also find that Muhammad Ramzan wanted his name to be entered in the Zaid Rabi Crop only therefore the nature of his claim would in no way lead to presumption that this delay was for some ulterior motives. While maintaining the above facts we are of the considered opinion that the minor penalty of 'Censure' would meet the end of justice. To this extent only the appeal is accepted.