MR. JUSTICE SHAH ABOUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant, while serving as Director, National Savings at Karachi, was served on 3rd May, 1977, with a show-cause notice dated 14th March, 1977.
The show--cause notice reads as under :- "The Annual Report of the Directorate of National Savings Karachi for 1974-75 was printed and circulated by you without the prior approval of the Head of the Department, i. e. Chief Director, National Savings. A considerable amount of money was wasted on printing of this report because an unusually high rate was accepted by you for designing and printing of the report. It was made clear to you by the C. D. N. S. That the next report would be on a national level and you were to supply him with a draft for this purpose. However, the annual report for 1975-76 has again been printed separately for the Directorate of National Savings, Karachi, on the previous rates. You have thus committed the following irregularities :-
(a) Report for 1975-76 was got printed without the consent/know--ledge of Chief Director, although you were specifically asked not to get the report printed and circulated.
(b) Considerable amount of money has been wasted because un--usually high rates have been accepted for designing and printing of the report.
(c) Approval of the competent authority was not obtained in advance for the expenditure which was beyond the prescribed limits. ,
2. As this is the second time that the report has been got printed and circulated without clearance from the Chief Director, National Savings, you are guilty of misconduct and, therefore, liable to disciplinary action under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. You are required to show cause why one of the penalties prescribed under these rules should not be imposed on you.
3. Your reply to this show-cause notice should reach the under-- signed within 10 days of the receipt of this notice".
The appellant furnished the reply to the show-cause notice on 14th May, 1977, but the explanation having not been found satisfactory, he was served with an order of censure dated 12th September, 1977 made in the following words :- "Consequent upon the disciplinary action taken against him under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, the President is pleased, under rule 3 of the said Rules, to impose the minor penalty of censure upon Mr. S. Mansur Alam Aquil, Director, National Savings, Lahore."
Since the order had been passed in the name of the President, the appel--lant presented a review petition on 8th October, 1977. It is admitted that this was not placed before the President, but the Finance Secretary rejected it, and the order of rejection was communicated to the appellant on 8th April, 1979. The appellant then filed the present appeal, but during the pendency of appeal, the order of censure was modified by issuing a corrigendum, which reads as under :- "Please read "Authorised Officer" instead of "President" occurring in line three of Finance Division Notification No. F.7(6)-IF-II/77- 1838, dated 12th September, 1977."
2. The appellant who argued his own case referred to the illegali--ties committed by the department. He particularly pointed out that the President had never passed any order of censure and the order communicated to the appellant wrongly mentioned that the order had been passed by the President. He further argued that the corrigendum issued by the respondent department could not correct the mischief, inasmuch as the appellant being under the impression that the order was passed by the President made a review petition to the President and not the appeal which adversely affected his right of examination of his case on merits, by the President. It was also argued that the review petition was never put up before the President, but the Finance Secretary himself disposed it of just informing the appellant that tine impugned Mardi had been passed by the Finance Secretary and not by the President and that the appellant should pursue the remedy accordingly.
3. We do not think it is necessary for us to go into the technical aspects of the case. The reason being that if we set aside the impugned order on technical grounds, it shall still be open to the respondent department to re-start the proceedings against the appellant. The main charge against the appellant is that he published the report of the Zone' of which he was incharge for the year 1975-76, without any authority and that he wasted considerable amount thereon. The contention of the respondent department is that it had been decided that the reports shall be published by the Federal Government itself by collecting information from different Zones. We have gone through the record and we find that there is some order in this respect, but that" does not relate to the year 1975-76, which forms the basic of the charge against the appellant. It can well be connected with the year 1976-77, but even then it appears that no consolidated report of different Zones was published by the Chief Director of the National Savings. All this goes to show that the appellant was being harassed on flimsy grounds without any fault of his. There appears on record evidence to the effect that, adverse report was given to the appellant, which was expunged as a hole. It also appears that the then Chief Director, National Savings desired re-employment after attaining the age of superannuation and that he could get only if no person qualified to replace him was available in the department. The appellant was the only person who was qualified to replace the Chief Director, and who by earning bad report and punishment of censure, was deprived of the promotion and the then Chief Director continued to hold the` post. This is thus a clear case of mala fide, and the order of the censure; cannot be upheld, firstly for the reason that the charge is not proved and secondly because the order was mala fide.
4. As a result, we accept this appeal and set aside the order of censure passed on the appellant. He is exonerated of the charge framed against him. No order as to costs is passed.