' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Iqbal Rajoka, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and Member (Rev), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 3rd March, 1980 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner Jhang, order, dated 13th October, 1980, passed by the learned Commissioner and order, dated 16th July, 1981, passed by the learned Member, BOR, be declared illegal.
3. Brief facts of the case that the appellant while working as Junior Clerk in the Vernacular Record Room D. C. Office Jhang, was charge-sheeted by the D. C. Jhang accompanied by the Statement of Allegations so made against him. The appellant filed his explanation on 2nd July, 1978, wherein an enquiry was held against him by the Assistant Commissioner, Jhnag, who was declared as Enquiry Officer in the said case. As the verdict of the Enquiry Officer went against the appellant, he was given a show-cause notice on 16th June, 1979, by the D. C. Jhang. The appellant filed his written statement before the said authority who found him guilty for the loss of judicial record which was in his custody and imposed a penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect.
Dissatisfied with the said order he filed an appeal before Mr. H. R. Pasha, Commissioner, Sargodha Division who vide his order, dated 13th October, 1980 refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed his appeal. The matter did not rest there and the appellant filed a lengthy revision petition before the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab. The appellant was informed by the Deputy Secretary (Estt.) Board of Revenue that his revision petition was considered and the same was filed. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant left the job of Deputy Record Keeper on 14th January, 1976 and the complaint of loss of judicial record was made against him on 24th March, 1976. As the checking proceedings whether the decuments were missing or not, were started more than a period of two months after the appellant had been transferred and handed over the charge of relevant file therefore, he could not be condemned for the said loss. It has been further submitted that the record of the said case was reconstructed by the Court concerned and the missing documents were the plaint and written statement which were not such documents out of which the appellant or any person could obtain any advantage, therefore, no ulterior motives could be attributed against him. He has also referred to the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.
Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and has claimed that it did not connect the appellant with the accusation, therefore, the appellant should not have been imposed this minor penalty.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department has fully supported the impugned judgment so passed against the appellant and has submitted that the case against the appellant was thoroughly enquired into by the Enquiry Officer and the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as learned Commissioner after taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the case, passed two well-considered judgments to which no exception can be taken as the culpability of the appellant was fully established without any manner of doubt. He has prayed that the appeal may be dismissed as being without any force.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments made before us and have also carefully looked into the Inquiry Report which mentioned all the evidence so produced by the appellant in his defence as well as of the prosecution against him. What we find is that all the P. Ws. Who have deposed against the appellant, were disinterested withou having any malice or bias against him, therefore, the learned D. C. Was fully justified to place reliance on their evidence. The only witness produced by the appellant in his defence was Mr. Muhammad Aslam Sargana Junior Clerk who was also one of the accused in the departmental enquiry. Evidence of this witness is general and vague in nature without pinpointing the crucial issue. We are of the considered opinion that the learned D. C. Was fully justified to ignore his evidence as of no consequence, We also further find that the appellant took different pleas at different stages of the enquiry. In his report on 29th March, 1976, he took a plea that the missing document was not received by him alongwith the file and on his demand Mr. Sajjad Hussain Copying Clerk had told him that he would return him the missing document but he did not return the same later on. It is suprising to note that in his reply to charge- sheet, dated 2nd July, 1978 and reply to show-cause notice on 26th June, 1979, the appellant stated that he had received the file from Mr. Sajjad Hussain Copying Clerk complete in all respect kept in the same Basta (in V. R. R.). He took another summersault on 2nd March, 1980 by giving different story that file was received by him from the Copying Agency incomplete and later on Copying Clerk had returned the missing document whereupon he placed the file complete in all respect, in relevant Basta in V. R. R. With these three different pleas at three different times by the appellant himself, leaves no room for any doubt that he is responsible for the loss of judicial documents and was not certain what positive plea he should take in his defence. The judgment of the learned Commissioner is a detailed judgment in which he has taken into consideration all pros and cons and has found, after hearing the appellant in person and exemination of record that the appellant had by this own admission accepted for the loss of documents of judicial file. He has also taken note of the three contradictory statements made by the appellant and ultimately found his appeal as being without any merits.
7. We are of the considered opinion that the action taken by the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as learned Commissioner was based on cogent reasons and they in their wisdom let off the appellant rightly by imposing upon him minor penalty of stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the two well-considered judgments so passed against the appellant, taking into consideration all the facts of the case for and against him.
8. The result is we dismiss the appeal being without any merit. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.