S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Syed Shahid Hussain Zaidi, Registrar, Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order of the Governor/MLA, Zone `A', Punjab Lahore, whereby the penalty of Censure, under rule 8 of the Punjab . Civil Servants (Efficiency and Dis--cipline) Rules, 1975 was imposed upon the appellant. He has impleaded the Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department, through the .Chief Secretary to Government of the Punjab, as respondent.
2: By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1977, the appellant was posted as a Magistrate 1st Class in the District Courts Lahore. On 1-7-1977--one Mian Ihsan Bari of Multan filed a 'Writ Petition No. 1522 of 1977, in the Lahore High Court; Lahore, in which he alleged that on 30th January, 1977, he was abducted, from the office of the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad and was carried to Gujrat; where he was subjected to torture, pressing him to withdraw his appeal against the unopposed election of Nawab Sadiq Hussain Qureshi, former Chief Minister of the Punjab, to the Provincial Assembly seat No. PP 166-Multan. However,' eke case was disposed of by the High Court, Lahore, with the observation that the petitioner should take his grievance to the authority possessed of the necessary power. On 14-9-1977, F.I.R, No. 70 of 1977 was lodged at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad, against ten persons including the appellant. Similarly the case was also registered by Mian Ihsan Bari at Police Station Old Kotwali, Multan, wherein a number of officers were involved. Both these cases did not materialise and the persons involved including the appellant, were neither arrested nor challaned. However, appellant was charge-sheeted under the Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, on the grounds that during the General Election of 1977 he while posted as Magistrate 1st Class Lahore, took -active part in the kidnapping of Mian Ihsan Bari, rival candidate of ex-Chief Minister, Punjab, Mr. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi from Islamabad, forcing him to quit away from the election and to withdraw- his appeal against Mr. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi who was declared successful as MPA. From Constituency PP 161. The appellant submitted his defence denying the charges. The Inquiry Committee comp--rising of. Mian Mohammad. Rafi, OSD, S&GA.I : Department and . Rana Muhammad Nawab Khan, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan found that although the appellant was .Not responsible for abduction yet he was present in Gujrat in the Rest House where the said Mien Ihsan Bari was confined. The matter was submitted to the Additional Chief Secretary who vide his note 4444 16-6-19$0; recommended that a show-cause notice be issued against the appellant. In consequence thereof a show-cause notice was issued and 22nd July, 1980, was fixed as date of hearing. In the mean--while Mr. S.K. Mahmud, Additional Chief Secretary, was transferred and Mr. Sajjadul Hassan, OSD/S&GAID was appointed as Authorised Officer. Mr. Sajjadul Hassan; vide his order dated 28-1-1981, acting as Authorised Officer, exonerated the appellant, a fact which has been admitted by the respondent in para. 15 of the comments. The case of the appellant was sent to the Governor of the Punjab, alongwith the report of Inquiry Committee as well as recommendations of the Authorised Officer. The Governor in his own wisdom, considered the case of the appellant keeping in view the above-mentioned documents and decided to award minor penalty of Censure to the appellant. This was conveyed to the appellant vide order dated 6-4-1981. He filed a review petition against the same which was considered by the Governor, but he maintained his earlier orders. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case- carefully with their assistance. The case ' of the appellant is that he was the only person, who was, picked up for this penalty, although a large number of officers senior to him, were involved in this case, who were let of, therefore, this would be a case of discrimina--tion. He has further argued that once he has been exonerated by the Authorised Officer, the Authority was under obligation to give reasons to differ with the same.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the case of the appellant was not the case of discrimination, as the case against other officers could not be processed at Provincial level as they belonged to the Central Government. Learned District Attorney has vehemently argued that Governor of the Punjab, was within his rights, either to accept the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee or to agree with the Authorised Officer, in - the case of the appellant and no exception can be taken to his decision in this respect. It has been further pointed out that Governor of the Punjab, is not under obligation to give detailed reasons for awarding a minor penalty as the decision taken by him was given after taking into consideration the relevant documents, so forwarded to hint.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties before us and have no dispute with the contention of the appellant that he was exonerated by the Authorised Officer who did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Committee so given against him. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Governor of the Punjab, has passed this order after fully considering the case of the appellant vis-a-vis the findings of the Inquiry. Committee and recommendations of tile Authorised Officer. In view of the above facts that the impugned order was passed after full consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the sama. We are also influenced by another feature of this case and that would be that the case of the appellant was reconsidered by the Governor, when he went in review before the said authority. In this mariner; we are justified to hold that the Governor considered his case but was of the opinion that the lapse on the part of the appellant, as pointed- out by the Inquiry' Committee had to be taken notice of.
7. The result is, we do not find any merits in this case which is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.