' The appellant, Nazir Ali, was working;as Zilladar in the Upper Jhelum Canal Circle of the Irrigation Department, when through order dated 24th September, 1978, passed by the Superintending Engineer (Headquarters), Sargodha Zone, he was removed from service on a charge of absence from duty. An appeal made to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha Zone, was dismissed on 17th January, 1979, and a petition tendered to the Secretary Irrigation, Punjab, rejected on 21st March, 1981.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. The appellant was suspended on 10th November, 1976 and served with the following charge-sheet on 21st June, 1977 :-
(1) You absented yourself from duty for 5th June 1976 and 6th June, 1976.
(2) To cover your absence you have shown some sectional work on 5th June, 1976 Meeting with Tehsildar, and 6th June, 1976 Partal work of village Sarley.
(3) You were not directed to attend such meeting with the Tehsildar by any Officer of the Irrigation Deptt. To conduct a meeting on 5th June, 1976 without any purpose.
(4) The partal work of village Sarley shown by you on 6th June, 1976 has been examined. The "Sarwarqs" of the Khasras do not show the partal as having been done at all. On examining the pages of the khasras it reveals that squares Nos. 46, 47, 55, 56 and 70 on pages 53 to 57 have been signed by you under date 6th June, 1976 in token of partal. But the patwari of the Halqa made his initial booking of squares Nos. 55, 56 and 70 on pages 55-57 on 19th June, 1976. This is clear proof of forged partal which you have done to cover your absence.
' Mr. Zulfiqar All Khan, Executive Engineer, Gujrat Division, was asked to hold departmental enquiry into the charges. The Enquiry Officer found vide enquiry report dated 25th September, 1977 that the charge of manipulating Government record in order to show himself on duty on the two days bad been established against the appellant. A show-cause notice was issued on 4th February, 1978 to which the appellant replied denying the charges. However, his reply having been found unsatisfactory the S. E. (HQ) issued the impugned order removing him from service. His appeal to the Chief Engineer dated 16th November, 1978 was rejected on 17th January, 1979 as being time- barred.
3. The parties were beard. The complete record of the case. Including the documents in which the appellant allegedly made false entries, was sent for and examined carefully. The appellant argued his case in person while the respondents were represented by the learned District Attorney. The appellant submitted that whereas he had entered in the roznamcha that he had a meeting with the Tehsildar and attended to "other miscellaneous work" on 5th June, 1976, the respondents had unduly stressed that he had not been directed to hold any meeting with the tehsildar and that they had conveniently ignored his attendance to "other miscellaneous work". The appellant said that he had proceeded to the tehsil HQ at Phalia in connexion with the Chief Engineer's telegram to all officers (dated 2nd June, 1976 No, 318) to supply registers relating to the land reforms. Moreover, on 5th June, 197o the Patwari reported a cut in a minor and the appellant directed him to book the irrigation at once, as is done when a cut is illegally made by cultivators, and himself went to check the Patwari's work. According to the appellant he inspected the cut on 6th June, 1976 and accordingly made the entry in the roznamcha, the entry which, along with the one made on 5th June, 1976, had been described by the respondents as forged. The appellant also assailed the enquiry proceedings contending that they had been vitiated by the fact that the enquiry report had not been supplied to him. Arguing for the respondents, the learned D. A. Stated that it was the misconduct of the appellant in using Government record to establish his false presence on duty which had obliged the respondents to take action against him. In order to cover his unlawful absence the appellant had resorted to tempering with official documents and this was misconduct of a high order. The appellant had been given a proper hearing and the proceedings taken against him were unexceptionable.
4. During the hearing the appellant called for acceptance of his appeal on the ground that it was only two days' absence for which he had been penalised so harshly, whereas in his 35 years of service it was the first time that he had been charged with misconduct. After the last hearing in Sargodha, the appellant also filed written arguments and vehemently denied the allegation that the entries of 5th June, 1976 and 6th June, 1976 had been made by him as an afterthought in order to show that he had performed duty when he actually had not. The Enquiry Officer was able to show that the appellant's visit to the place of the cut in the channel did not take place on 5th June, 1976. This was corroborated by the entries in the roznamcha of the Patwari. Similarly, the appellant's claim to have done the partal or village Surlay and checking unauthorised irrigation on 6th June, 1976 were not borne out from the Patwari's roznamcha. Moreover, the other Government papers wherein record of such work is entered, like the sar-wark of the khasra and, the fard partal, do not carry any mention of the work claimed to have been done by the appellant on the two days. On the other hand there is no apparent reason why the appellant should have taken the risk of manipulating the Government record when he could easily have taken leave for the two days as casual leave amounting to 25 days is said to have been available to his credit. It seems that in a weak moment he succumbed to the temptation of showing official work done on the two days instead of using up two days' casual leave. In this view of the matter the punishment awarded to him is definitely excessive. Admittedly it is no ordinary matter to play about with Government documents, but in this case the mitigating circumstance is that the appellant derived no financial or material benefit from what he did, nor was it intended to give any monetary advantage to anyone else. At best it can be termed as an indiscretion, but it was compounded by this fact that the official record had been employed to indulge in this indiscretion. A perusal of the appellant's record of service indicates that the appellant's past is marked by a few instances of unorthodox behaviour : perhaps it was these aberrations which prompted the respondents to impose on him a penalty not commensurate with his misdemeanour.
5. I have noticed that whereas the two days' absence took place in June, 1976, the appellant was suspended in November, 1976, i,e, five months later, and charge-sheeted in June, 1977, i,e, exactly one year after the absence. The impugned order was passed in September, 1978, i,e, 2 1/2 years after the absence. I have already mentioned that the Chief Engineer dismissed his appeal on grounds of being time-barred. In the face of these long periods during which the appellant was kept in suspense about his fate I have decided to overlook the delay from which the appellant's appeal to this Tribunal suffers.
6. I have stated above that the punishment awarded to the appellant was excessive; in other words he certainly deserved to be penalized for tampering with the Government record but had been dealt with harshly. The appellant has been out of service ever since the impugned order was passed on 24th September, 1978. Naturally he has not been paid since that day. I am of the view that if he were to be re-instated in service and was not paid anything for this period it would be sufficient punishment for using the Government record unlawfully to show him on duty on the two days. I am inclined to arrive at this conclusion as much by the circumstances of the case as by the fact of his long service in the department.
7. In the light of the above discussion the impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is re- instated in service, without, however, being entitled to any salary and allowances for the period he remained out of service. The appeal is thus accepted to this extent. There will be no order as to costs.