S. ABDUL JABBAQ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).- Messrs Ch. Riaz Ahmad, Mumtaz. Ahmad Chaudhry and Muhammad Masud Shaukat, have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded Full Board of Revenue as well as Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, as respondents.
2. By virtue of these appeals, they have prayed that the impugned order dated 5-7-1981, by which Ch. Riaz Ahmad (appellant) has been formally censured and Messrs Mumtaz Ahmad Chaudhry and Muhammad Masud Shaukat, have been awarded the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Lambardars of Tehsil Kasur were shown defaulters in Khathoni Malguzari since Kharif 1970, for non--payment of huge amount extending over two lacs of rupees. A complaint was submitted to the former Minister for Revenue and Colonies Depart--ment, on behalf of these Lambardars in which they had agitated that in fact, nothing was due from them and the coercive meausures taken against them for the recovery of the said amount by the Tehsildars, Kasur was an act, completely unjustified. These Lambardars laid blames at the doors of officials like Wasil Baqi Navees and Peons of Tehsil who according to them had misappropriated the amounts for which Lambardars were being held responsible. Under the orders of the former Minister for Revenue, a regular enquiry was instituted. Former Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue was appointed as Enquiry Officer. This enquiry was conducted in Tehsil office Kasur on 7th and 11th January, 1977 in the presence of the complainant Lambardars and the accused officials. According to the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the appellants were held responsible only to the extent of negligence and lack of supervision over their subordinate staff which had resulted in this fiasco. The Commissioner, Lahore Division, being an Authorised Officer, proceeded against the appellants and recommended punishment of reduction in the rank of the appellants. After affording an opportunity of being heard in person, the authority reverted all the appellants to the rank of Naib--Tahsildars. The appellants filed appeals against the order of the above authority before the Full Board of Revenue. The Full Board of Revenue, vide their order dated 5-7-1981 (impugned), set aside the order of reversion and imposed a minor penalty of Censure against Ch. Riaz Ahmad and withheld increments of one year in the case of other two appellants, of course without cumulative effect. Hence these appeals.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of these cases carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of Ch. Riaz Ahmad (appellant) has submitted that the only point which has weighed with the Full Board of Revenue, against the said appellant was, that he had signed the incorrect statement and admission of the said fact stood fully proved on the record as well as by admission of the appellant. According to the learned counsel a prominent feature of this case has been ignored by the Full Board of Revenue although the same has been mentioned in para. 11 of the judgment that Ch. Riaz Ahmad, appellant, had detected the discrepancy in the statement in July, 1976 i. e. Much before the enquiry was instituted. According to the learned counsel this would have been a sufficient ground to fully exonerate Ch. Riaz Ahmad, appellant and the penalty of censure was thus uncalled for.
6. With regard to the other two appellants, it was submitted that the stand of Muhammad Masud Shaukat, was fully highlighted by the Full Board in para. 7 of its judgment, wherein, this appellant has denied signing the said wrong statement, caused in his appointment as Naib---Tehsildar in Kasur in November, 1974 and uptil Kharif 75. It was submit--ted on his behalf that while awarding minor penalty of withholding one year increment without cumulative effect, the Full Board has failed either to controvert or to give any positive finding on the stand so taken by the appellant, mention of which is fully available in para. 7 of the said judgment.
7. In case of Mumtaz Ahmad Chaudhry, learned counsel has taken us through para. 9 of the judgment, wherein the appellant has emphasized that the statements prepared by the Treasury were sent at the close of "Siah" on 26th or 27th of each month, whereas the statements prepared by Wasil Baqi Navees were submitted in the meetings of Revenue Officers held at the close of each months, therefore the discrepancy of the two statements was inevitable. In this way the learned counsel has submitted that his case should have been considered at par with that of Ch. Riaz Ahmad.
8. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that whatever the case may be, there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants were responsible to scrutinize the statement(s) in question inde--pendently as this responsibility was placed upon them under Standing Order No. 31 of the Board of Revenue. According to the learned District Attorney this has been so admitted by the appellants during the course of the enquiry as well as before the Authorised Officer, a fact which cannot be denied by them.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties after attending to the detailed and elaborate judgment of the Full Board of Revenue and do not find any justification to interfere with the same as far as the case of Ch. Riaz Ahmad is concerned. He has been let of lightly as the Full Board of Revenue, found that the charge of defalcation and misappropriation stood not proved against him and taking into consideration of the fact that he had also detected the mistake in the statement(s) earlier than the enquiry therefore, the minor penalty of Censure was considered to serve the purpose.
10. In case of Muhammad Masud Shaukat, we have no hesitation to observe that his contention so mentioned by the Full Board in para. 7 of their judgment relating to the denial of signing the disputed statement, has not been either controverted or commented 'upon in the concluding para. Of their judgment. There is of course a passing reference in para. 10 of the judgment that all the appellants are guilty of the lapse of signing the incorrect statements. In view of the above, we vary the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, against Muhammad Masud Shaukat appellant, to that of Censure, to bring him a par with the case of Riaz Ahmad. This officer ha-- since retired and if the said punishment is maintained he is likely to suffer a recurring monetary loss during his lifetime.
11. While taking the case of Mumtaz Ahmad Chaudhry we do not find any justification to interfere with 'the punishment so awarded to him as he has failed to give any cogent reason in his defence and we also do not find extenuating circumstances in his favour so as to consider his case at par with that of Muhammad Masud Shaukat. His case has been fully commented upon by the Full Board of Revenue in its judgment to which no exception can be taken.
12. The result is that we dismiss the appeals, maintain the order of Full Board of Revenue and partially accept the appeal of Muhammad Masud Shaukat to the extent so indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.