Shuja-ud-Din, Member .--Briefly stated the facts of the instant service appeal are that, appellant was served with a letter dated 7.4.2015 issued by Respond ent No. 1 calling his explanation, regarding defective Proposal Form of Ahmad Nawaz proposer and getting clinical tests & re-medical examination in violation of Departmental Rules, constituting "Misconduct." The appellant submitted his reply on 9.4.2015, asserting that the proposer came Hospital late just after departure of Respondent No. 1. Therefore clinical test of CBC and medical examination was got conducted in the absence of Assistant Director (Field) PLI Sargodha in good faith. Thereupon, the appellant requested to forward the Proposer Form to the CO for further disposal as the proposer has left the country for performance of Umrah . He however , regretted any laxity on his part. Subsequently , he was served with Charge Sheet and Statement of Allegations on 17.4.2015.The appellant replied in writing . He said that in the past such proposal forms were admitted. In this case, the Respondent No. 1 did not in attendance in Hospital at the time of test. His defense plea was rejected. However , the Authorized Officer imposed minor punishment of stoppage of two increments for two years with a direction to be careful in future, vide order dated 22.5.2015. He preferred a departmental appeal on 19.6.2015. The Respondent No. 2 reduced the quantum of penalty . Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for appellant argued that as a matter of routine, the medical examination and clinical test were being done which were forwarded by Respondent No. 1 to the office of the G.M, PLI, Lahore, Such cases were approved in the past. The Respondent No. 1 allowed the appellant to get such medical examination conducted.
Following the routine practice, the appellant got conducted clinical test and medi cal examination of the proposer Ahmed Nawaz and submitted the form to Respondent No. 1 for onward transmission. There was no adverse intention of appellant as such no loss was caused to the Department. There was no case of fraud. Appellant did the same in the interest of the Department to promote its Scheme. However , he beseeched for pardon. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 acting as Appellate Authority held that the punishment does not commensurate with the offence of disobedience as harsh and modified the same into stoppage of increment for six months with a direction to be careful in future and abide by the prescribed rules and procedures, vide impugned order dated 25.2.2016. The learned counsel has emphasized that both the impugned orders dated 22.5.2015 and 25.2.2016 were passed without conducting any inquiry , non-recording of statements of witnesses and of Respond ent No. 1 to ascertain whether the policy followed in the past in such like cases was also in violation of rules. As such he prayed for acceptance of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.2.2016.
3. The respondents in their detailed reply have urged that the appellant has a track record of blemished service at his credit. He had been imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment by the A.D (F) PLI, Mianwali on account of Misconduct/Inef ficiency on failure to get fresh PLI Business target while workin g as Assistant Superintendent, PLI Bhakkar , vide Memo dated 22.1.2 016. The Appellate Authority took a lenient view converted the said punishment into "Censure" vide order dated 21.3.2016. The Appellate Authority set aside the imposition of stoppage of one increment for six months without future effect dated 14.3.2016, vide order dated 18.5.2 016.
In this case, he was required to explain vide letter dated 7.4.2016 by Respondent No. 1 on the ground of sending defective proposal form of the proposer namely Ahmad Nawaz in his absence violating the Departmental Rules.
The appellant confessed his laxity and pleaded for pardon. He was issued a Charge Sheet on .17.4.2015 by the Respondent No. 1 to which he replied. Then the Authorized Officer imposed minor penalty of stoppage of two increments for two years with a direction to be careful in future vide order dated.e 22.5.2015. He filed his departmental appeal on 19.6.2015. The Appellate Authority converted the afores aid penalty into lighter mode to that of stoppage of increment for six mont hs only with a direction to be careful in future and abide by the prescribed rules and procedures vide order dated 25.2.2016. The learned A.A.-G has contended that in this case no regular inquiry was needed. The appellant acted against the rules/instructions by confessing his guilt. He violated the procedural formalities. No such instructions were issued to him by the respondents. Thus the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of both the parties. We have also gone through the entire record. It may be noted that the appellant being Assistant Superintendent (Field) PL1, Khushab was charge sheeted by the Respondent No. 1 Assistant Director (Field) PLI, Sargodha on the allegations that a defective Proposal Form in the name of Mr. Ahmad Nawaz on was received from Mr. Riaz Hussain Asst: Supdt Field (appellant) on 02.04.2015 in respect of conducting clinical tests and re-medical examination of the proposer at his own end in absence of Assistant Director (Field) Sargodha. Therefore, by conducting required repeat CBC and re- medical examination of proposer in absence of Assistant Director (Field) Sargodha, he violated the departmental rules. Since it was alleged that the appella nt acted in a manner prejudicial to the rules and beyond his competence, therefore, he has committed misconduct and inefficiency . According to the record, the authorized officer did not deem it necessary to hold formal enquiry under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The inquiry was dispensed with. Ultimately , the Respondent No. 1 while repelling the defence statement of appellant held him guilty and imposed a minor penalty . Initially , Respondent No. 1 called the appellant to explain the reason of getting clinical tests and medical examination of the proposer in his absence. In reply , the appellant stated that on relevant day the proposer came to Hospital late just after the departure of Assistant Directo r (Field), therefore, the CBC test and medical examination were conducted in his absence. At the subsequent stage, in reply to the charge sheet, the appellant submitted a detailed statement taking the specific plea that it was a routine practise that the Proposer Forms used to be transmitted to Assistant Director (Field) PLI after repeating clinical test and medical examination and Assistant Director (Field) PLI would forward such forms to circle office Lahore after endorsing his signatures.
Further , such Proposer Forms used to be approved. Likewise, on 31.01.2015, five Proposer Forms for medical examination and clinical test were sent to Assistant Director (Field) PLI which were forwarded to Circle Office after the signatures as the Assistant Director usually do not visit Khushab personally . The tone and tenor of the written defence statement of the appellant make it clear that he conceded candidly about clinical test and re-medical examination of proposer in absence of Assistant Director (Field) PLI Sargodha. However , he tried to justify by saying that it was a routine matter . Henc e the appellant took an excuse of past practice which cannot justify his departure from rules. So far so the conten tion of the appellant that he was punishe d without holding formal enquiry is concerned, we are of the view that the peculiar circumstances arising out of the admission of the appellant in his defence statement, do not normally call for the enquiry proceedings by appointing inquiry officer or committee. As the appellant has not disputed the factum of getting re-medical examination and clinical test in the absence of Assistant Director (Field) PLI, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 has rightly and pragmatically dispensed with the formal enquiry before imposing a minor penalty . Evidently , the appellant has got reasonable opportunity to defend therefore our indulgence to annul action is not warranted.
5. As far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the authorized officer imposed minor penalty in terms of stoppage of two increments for two years. Respondent No. 2. in the departmental C appeal has taken adequate compassion and converted the punishment into stoppage of increment for six months only. Hence, we have not noticed any significant defect in the proceedings against the appellant and the quantum of penalty mete out finally .
6. In view of the above, the instant appeal is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed, accordingly .
7. There is no order as to cost. Parties be informed.