IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Through this common judgment we intend to decide Civil Petitions Nos. 813, 814 and 815-L of 2020 as common questions of law are involved in the said petitions and arise out of the same judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 04.1 1.2019.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of this lis are that the respondents were assigned duties , to improve watercourses through the Asian Development Bank assisted 03rd Punjab OFWM Project. As per procedure laid down in PC-1 the lining of watercourses was admissible up to 30% of total length of the same.
However , the Water Users Association (WUA) was required to provide for lining of the remaining portion of each watercourse in excess of 30% of the total length. The respondents were charged with the offence of undertaking excess lining of the watercourses by utilizing government funds in violation of express provisions of PC-1 which resulted in huge financial loss to the government.
3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondents, proper inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted his recommendations to the competent authority . The competent authority after affording opportunity of personal hearing and examining the record of the case imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. A depar tmental appeal filed by the respondents did not succeed. However , their appeal before the service tribunal was partly allowed which remanded the case to the department for fresh proceedings.
4. A de novo inquiry was conducted in which the respondents were once again found guilty and the competent authority imposed the following penalties on the respondents:- i) penalty of reduction to 4 lower stages in pay scale; ii) compulsory retirement from government service; iii) recovery of Rs. 41,38,503/- from WUA's through the Land Revenue department.
The respondents filed departmental appeals which did not succeed. This prompte d them to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal which allowed their appeals by holding that since Anwar Adil and Zubair Akbar Gill had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation their punishment of compulsory retirement from service shall remain intact. However , the penalty of reductio n to five lower stages in pay scale was set aside. The penalties of compulsory retirement from service awarded to Riaz Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Sikandar Saeed were set aside. However , the penalties of reduction to lower stages as specified in the departmental order were to remain intact for five years. Riaz Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Sikandar Saeed were also reinstated into service. The intervening period was to be treated as leave of a kind due. The petitioners are aggrieved of the said order . Hence, these petitions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned tribunal dealt with the matter in a very slipshod manner . He maintains that it altogether ignored material aspects of the case to the effect that in exercising official authority , a public servant is expected to act carefully methodically and in accordance with laid down guidelines.
Where, on amount of negligence and carelessness public funds are either misappropriated, lost, wasted or misused the public servant responsible for the same is required to face legal consequences of his actions. He maintains that huge amounts of public funds were misused and wasted on account of carelessness, negligence and misconduct on the part of the respondents for which they were rightly punished by the departmental authorities.
6. He further maintains that although the Tribunal enjoys the power of modification in the penalty imposed by the department in suitable cases in terms of section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, such power is required to be exercised carefully , judiciously and with circumspection. Further , the tribunal is required to record cogent and logical reasons for such reduction as has been held in various pronouncements of this Court.
7. The learned ASC for the respondents on the other hand has defended the impugned judgment. He maintains that on account of acts and omissions of the respondents some extra work was indeed done. However , according to him, there was no financial loss to the exchequer in view of the fact that the amounts so spent have been recovered from the Water Users Associat ion. He further submits that in view of the fact that there was no criminal intent, misappropriation or corruption involved, the tribunal had validly and justly converted the penalty to make it proportionate to the of fence with which the respondents were charged.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. It is clear and obvious from the record that the respondents were charg ed with serious offences where they had utilized government funds to undertake excess lining over and above 30% of the total length of various watercourses. This they were not authorized to do. By using and misusing state funds to benefit private interests constitutes the serious dereliction of duty. The acts of the respondents were clearly contrary to the express terms of PC-1. There is no denial of fact that substantial amounts of government funds were spent in doing so. Whether or not said amounts were recovered from WUO's is not clear from the record as there is nothing to show that such recoveries have been made. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is therefore not supported by the record. We notice that even the Tribunal in its findings has come to the conclusion that the respondents were negligent and inefficient in performing their duties and the findings of the department were based upon thorough probe by the competent authority . In the face of such conclusion which is supported by the record and is not even denied by the respondents the opinion of the Tribunal that the penalties imposed by the department in its proceedings were not commensurate with the gravity of the charge, is not understandable. We have found such opinion to be arbitrary , whimsical and not grounded in sound legal principles.
9. In the best case scenario, the case of respondents was that they were indeed negligent and inefficient which acts had obviously and admittedly resulted in huge amount of money from the public exchequer running into millions of rupees, being spent which were not required to be spent. Such amoun ts were obviously spent without authorization whether by design or on account of extreme carelessness and negligence. Both have equally negative consequences for the exchequer . The said fact stood established and admitted. As such the competent authority by taking a relatively lenient view imposed penalty of reduction to four lower stages in pay scale in addition to imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.
10. We have found the said penalty to be proportionate and commensurate with the gravity of the offence considering the amount of loss of public funds on account of extreme negligence and inefficiently on the part of the respondents was substantial and ran into millions. The reliance of the Tribunal on the philosophy of punishment being based on the concept of retribution which according to the tribunal may either to be through the method of deterrence or reformation is, to say the least neither relevant nor apt in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We have repeatedly held in a large number of judgments that the power of the tribunal to interfere in the quantum of punishment has to be carefully exercised with utmost caution, care and circumspection. Further in case such power is exercised, elaborate, cogent and legally sustained reasons have to be recorded. The impugned judgment is devoid of any such reasoning let alone cogent or logical or legally sustainable. We have found that the tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction carelessly and casually and has not kept the principles of law laid down by this Court in its various pronouncements, which appear to be escaped the notice of the learned tribunal. We are, therefore, in no manner of doubt, that the impugned judgment of the tribunal is unsustainable.
11. For the aforenoted reasons we convert these petitions into appeals and allowed the same. The impugned judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 04.11.2019 is accordingly set aside and the penalty imposed by the concerned department is upheld and af firmed.