Qazi Khalid Ali, Chairman .--The appellant has challenged the order dated 4.12.2019, whereby major penalty of "reduction to a lower post of Election Officer BPS-17) with effect from 3rd Decem ber, 2019" was imposed upon him. His departmental appeal dated 27.12.2019 was rejected vide order dated 5.3.2020.
2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellant contended that the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law as it was conducted in a slipshod manner which is violative of Rule-6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973; the impugned penal ty has been imposed upon him without affording him proper chance of defence; the appellant has not committed any misconduct. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that discriminatory treatment was meted with the appellant as two persons were made responsible for the one offence i.e. same charge sheet was also served upon another person namely Mr. Muhammad Saleem alongwith the appellant, but the appellant was awar ded with the impugned major punishment while Muhammad Saleem was awarded penalty of "withholding of annual increments for a period of two years which is due on 01.12.2019.
3. Conversely , the respondents contended that the appellant was held guilty of the charges after affording him full chance of defence during the inquiry .
4. After hearing the arguments, we have gone through the record. The allegations as contained in the statement of allegations dated 1 1.09.2019 were: WHEREAS, you, M/s. Muhammad Saleem and Nazir Muhammad, Ex/Present District Election Commissioners, Okara, have ceased to be guilty of miscon duct under the Government Servants (Efficiency Discipline) Rules, 1973.
3808 Ballot Boxes were found missing from District Okara which were stored at Main Entrance of District Stadium, Okara.
WHEREAS, Committee comprising the following officers was constituted to probe the matter and fix the responsibility of negligence:
(i) Mr . Shahid Iqbal, REC, Multan/Chairman,
(ii) Mr . Abid Hussain, REC, Lahore/Member ,
(iii) Mr . Abdul Hameed, Director (Estt), PEC Office, Lahore/Member .
You both found to be negligent in the sphere of your performance and jurisdiction of your job responsibilities and hence, ceased prejudicial to good order .
WHEREAS, you both neither maintain proper record of receiving! disposal of Ballot Boxes in office nor proper handing! taking over of material. Besides , the quantity of Ballot Boxes were not checked. Instead the storage of Ballot Boxes at Stadium was communica ted verbally this act shows merely failing of coordination between both DECs and eventually loss of ECP .
WHEREAS, your act crated the embarras sing situation for the office. The Ballot Boxes were found scattered at that place and consequently , lost! stolen. This also divulges the lack of coordination amongst you both and between District Government Administration.
WHEREAS, major responsibility of stolen/ missing Ballot Boxes falls under the ambit of Mr. Muhammad Saleem, ex-DEC, Okara for your decision to store the Ballot Boxes at Stadium.
WHEREAS, you, Mr. Nazir Muhammad, DEC, Okara failed to arrange the security at unattended place and failed to shift Ballot Boxes and screened-off compartment at store in Military Farms HQ, Okara. You were informed by the office of PEC, Punjab to meet transportation expenditure within the allocated budget but contrary to instructions you kept on demanding funds to transport material to Godown. You failed to search out the suitable building for Ballot Boxes at proper time.
AND WHEREAS, prima facie from the facts of the matter it appears that you both are responsible and guilty of misconduct and substantial evidence is available to arrive at conclusion that disciplinary action is liable to be taken against you.
NOW THEREFORE, you Ws. Muhammad Saleem and Nazir Muhammad, Ex/Present, District . Election Commissioners, Okara appear to be responsible for acts of misconduct and are liable to be proceeded against in accordance with Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. Hence, to this statement of allegations alongwith Charge Sheet, if they have any defence, oral or documentary , may submit it to the inquiry officer within stipulated period otherwise the Inquiry Officer will submit its report to the Competent Authority for necessary action under the law , assuming that they have nothing to say in your defence".
We have gone through the inquiry report carefully and conclusion & findings are reproduced as under: "Apart from naive and credulous approach, minute information was collected about the odd incident i.e. the theft of the stolen Ballot Boxes. After having discussion with the DPO, Okara, Members of the Fact Finding Inquiry Committee and the perusal of documentary evidences, I reached to the following conclusion: Unfortunately , both officers were unable to understand that the theft of the physical asset at a large scale is not a petty theft. Such kind of incident neither took place in the country nor in the entire Electoral history . Basically , the theft stemmed from their conduct and irresponsible behavior . Now the question is that why they did not adopted responsible, behavior and professed criterion regarding the safe preservation of Ballot Boxes. Just because of irrational hopes while doing nothing sincerely and believing in good fortune that nothing will be happened. On the contrary , the mater needed application of reason and mature behavior .
Since brevity is the sole of wit and confining me to my mandate, I would like to state that during their tenure of Ohara district, both the officers experienced profound negligence and adopted irresponsible behavior towards their chief concern i.e. safe storage of Election material. Their behavior depicts a picture of series of violation on their part because of their lukewarm response towards their primary duty. So, the enigma concerning the fixation of responsibility for the stolen ballot boxes has been largely resolved.
By summing it up, I would like to suggest that the penalty would be decided by your Excellency while having benevolence in your mind towards human mistakes because both the officers are going to be retired from their services within a span of two years".
Show cause dated 01.11.2019 alongwith inquiry report was, thereafter , issued to the appellant wherein it was stated that, "the Authorized Officer has considered the inquiry report and arrived at a provisional conclusion that the above allegations stand proved and there is sufficient grounds to impose the penalty on both of you". In the show cause notice it was also desired if the appellant wanted to be heard in person. Reply thereof was duly submitted by the appellant wherein appellant stated that he "desired to be heard in person". It appears from the record that the appellant was heard in person. Impugned notification dated 04.12.2019 was issued, imposing two different penalties upon appellant and the other co-accused namely Mr. Muhammad Saleem . Perusal of the impugned order has revealed that no reason has been given/assigned for imposing two -different penalties upon both of them, while charges were of the same nature. In our considered view, discrimination is apparent from the face of record so far as imposing two dif ferent penalties on two persons on same set of charges.
5. For the foregoing, the appeal is accepted to the extent that the impugned penalty is converted and modified to one "minor penalty of withholding of annual increments for a period of two years, which is due on 01.12.2019" as imposed upon co-accused Mr. Muhammad Saleem. With such modification, the appeal is disposed of. Order accordingly .
6. No order as to costs. Parties may be informed.