' Justice Shahid Waheed, Member.--Challenge in this appeal is to the Notification No. 136/RHC/CJJ dated 19th July, 2010 whereby a minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect was imposed upon the appellant.
2. This appeal under Section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 has arisen in the background that on 25th September, 2007 one Mumtaz Ali and Shabana Noureen filed a complaint against the appellant, Alam Sher, who at that time was posted as Civil Judge, Multan.
Apropos of this complaint, the Authority vide Letter No. 214/RHC/C-I dated 14th July, 2008 appointed District & Sessions Judge, Khanewal as Inquiry Officer to probe into the allegations levelled in the said complaint. The Inquiry Officer accordingly served a Charge Sheet No. 175/EB dated 17th July, 2008 upon the appellant and called for his reply. The appellant on 30.7.2008 submitted reply to the charge-sheet and denied the allegations. The Inquiry Officer held a detailed inquiry and submitted his report to the Authority on 11th September, 2008. The penultimate paragraph thereof reads as under:-- "Although complainant has withdrawn from the prosecution of her complaint on her behalf and on behalf of her uncle Mumtaz Ali, but undersigned has examined merits of the complaint. In this respect order-sheets produced by Mr. Habib Ashraf Qureshi, ACOC, Sessions Court, Multan have been perused which show that the respondent on the one file i. e. Execution petition recorded the order on 30.7.2007 but due to inadvertence recorded another date in the file of application under Section 12(2), CPC apparently on 29.7.2007. This fact of recording of date of 29.7.2007 has been explained by respondent in his written defence that in fact order was recorded on 30.7.2007 but inadvertently date was written as 29.7.2007. Even otherwise there is nothing on file to show that file was placed before respondent on Sunday at his residence. So far as shortening of date without notice is concerned, the respondent has attached with his written defence a certificate issued by Sh. Dilawar, Advocate, counsel for complainant, Mst. Shabana Noureen wherein he narrated that on his request the date was shortened to 29.7.2007 by respondent in the presence of opposite party. In view of these facts, there appears no mala fide on behalf of Mr. Alam Sher for shortening date and fixing case on Sunday. This may happen due to rush of work. The officer, it is learnt, enjoys good reputation and sound integrity. Since the complainant has withdrawn from the prosecution of the complaint, therefore, no action against the respondent is proposed who has even otherwise solemnly undertaken to remain careful in future.
' The Authority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999 did not agree with the inquiry report and ordered de novo inquiry; and, vide Letter No. 774/RHC/C-I dated 8th May, 2009 appointed Mr. Muhammad Din Basra, District & Sessions Judge as Inquiry Officer.
Pursuant to above said letter, the new Inquiry Officer charged the appellant with misconduct and inefficiency vide fresh charge-sheet No. 853 dated 12th June, 2009 on the basis of following allegation: "That while posted as Civil Judge at Multan, an application u/S. 12(2), CPC titled "Mumtaz Ali us.
Arjamand etc." was fixed before your Court for 13.7.2007 for summoning the original file. On the said date the said petition was adjourned by you for 29.09.2007 for requisitioning the original file but later on in connivance with the respondent, you with mala fide intention changed the date from 29.09.2007 to 29.07.2007 by making interpolation in the judicial record and dismissed the above captioned petition for non-prosecution with ulterior motive despite the fact that on 29.7.2007 it was a Sunday and was not a date of hearing in the case. "
' The appellant on 27th June, 2009 submitted his written defence. After holding detailed inquiry, the said Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 9th June, 2010 concluded as follows:-- "After having evaluated the evidence on record I have come to the conclusion that charge of inefficiency stands proved against the accused officer. So far as charge of gross misconduct in conducing proceedings with ulterior motives or mala fide intentions is concerned no concrete evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution nor any allegation of corruption has been levelled against him by complainant or her witnesses. It is also relevant to point out that admittedly an execution proceedings filed by the opposite side were being adjourned without issuance of any process or coercive measures. Had the officer been in league with the other side then he must have issued coercive process in from of warrants of possession in favour of the decree holder on the date when petition u/S. 12(2) was dismissed for non-prosecution. Rather it is proved on record that execution petition was adjourned to 22-9-07 without any effective proceedings. It is also in the statement of AW-1 Mst. Shabana Noureen that when they informed the Presiding Officer regarding dismissal of their petition u/S. 12(2), CPC for non- prosecution he advised to file an application for its restoration. Complainant Shabnam Noureen has not levelled any allegation of corruption against the accused officer and other complainant Mumtaz Ali did not enter in the witness box despite repeated opportunities granted. The charge of gross misconduct or conducting proceedings with ulterior motives or mala fide intention is not proved against accused officer.
' Adverting to the charge of inefficiency which stands proved the accused officer while appearing as DW-6 has stated that due to death of his real brother, rush of work and summer season he inadvertently mentioned the date as 29-7-07 instead of 30-7-07 whereas in execution petition Ex.
A/16 on the order sheet exact date of hearing i.e. 30-7-2009 has been mentioned. I, therefore, propose on the accused officer penalty of withholding of two annual increments for period of two years without cumulative effect u/R. 4(1) (a) (ii) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline)
Rules, 1999."
' On the receipt of the above said inquiry report , the Authority vide impugned Notification No. 136/RHC/CJJ dated 19th July, 2010 imposed minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect upon the appellant. Feeling anguished, the appellant through a petition under Rule 18 of The Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline)
Rules, 1999 sought review of the said notification. This review was not responded and, therefore after lapse of 90 days the appellant filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The sole question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case a minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect could be imposed upon the appellant on the basis of allegation set out in the charge sheet dated 12th June, 2009. The appellant's counsel contended that if anything was proved against the appellant, it was only an inadvertent neglect in adjourning the proceedings on a date which fell on a holiday; that said neglect alone could not be made the basis of punishment particularly when the same was not prompted by any mala fide, or ulterior motive 'against any of the litigating parties; that to err is human and law gives a fair deal of allowance to unintentional human errors; that the service record of the appellant bears testimony to the effect that the lapse, whatever found against him was the first of its kind; and, that the punishment is harsh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has resisted the contention canvassed by the appellant's counsel. He submitted that the appellant committed grave negligence while performing his judicial duty and, therefore, minor penalty was justified; and, that the appellant, through a detailed inquiry, was found guilty of serious negligence while performing judicial duties and thus the impugned order/notification is quite justified.
4. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent are not persuasive tb confirm the impugned Notification qua the imposition of minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments for' a period of two years without cumulative effect upon the appellant. In the present case the appellant was charged for inefficiency and misconduct. The charge of gross misconduct or conducting proceedings with ulterior motive or mala fide intention was not proved against the appellant and, therefore, there is no need to dilate upon it. However, as regard the charge of inefficiency, in respect of which the appellate was punished, the Inquiry Officer concluded, "the accused officer while appearing as DW-6 as stated that due to death of his real brother, rush of work and summer season he inadvertently mentioned the date as 29.7.2007 instead of 30.7.2007 whereas in execution petition (Ex. A/16) on the order-sheet exact date of hearing i.e. 30.7.2009 has been mentioned." This observation shows that there was an error but it was of lower category emanating from the instinct possibly of human error and definitely not prompted by any motive. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the past service record of the appellant revealed instances of inefficient handling of cases. The single instance of any incorrect behavior of individual in any discipline whatsoever can hardly furnish a ground for holding him guilty of incompetencey or inefficiency. Thus the unblemished service record of the appellant leads to the irresistible A conclusion that the allegation levelled against him being the single slip t or error could not be construed as amounting to inefficiency; and, therefore, the punishment awarded to him was uncalled for. In this regard reliance may be placed on the case of A. U. Musarrat vs. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1977 SC 24) wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as follows:-- "Although there may be some rare cases of gross negligence which if found to be established would leave one in no manner of doubt as to the inefficiency of the official concerned yet a single slip or lapse, if any one the part of a Government servant with a consistently good record would not invariably justify such an inference ordinarily a single slip or error and of course to err is human, should not be straight away construed as amounting to inefficiency."
5. In view of above, answer to the question stated in Para 3 ante, is given in the negative; resultantly we accept this appeal; and, set aside the Notification No. 136/RHC/CJJ dated 19th July, 2010 whereby minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect was imposed upon the appellant.