' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Rafique has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, against the order, dated 17th February, 1981 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer (Administration), Lahore whereby penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed on the appellant for committing irregularities in Cinema Management. The appellant filed appeal before the Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore which also rejected the same on 5th August, 1981.
2. By virtue of this case he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the preliminary stage of hearing who contended that the impugned orders are without force and legal value because the Enquiry Officer did not record the statement of the appellant as well as prosecution witnesses therefore, the appellant was condemned unheard. With regard to the merits of the case he has submitted that the appellant was not expected to reach Cinema before 12-30 noon, therefore, the charge of arriving late at the Cinema Hall was not correct. As we have benefit of parawise comments which were received by us, a copy of which has been provided to the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, we proceed with this case.
4. After perusing the comments we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, at length and find that there was no justification for the appellant to leave for Lahore on the morning 20th October, 1980 when he was on duty, on the plea that his daughter was ill. According to settled norms of duties with regard to a civil servant, he is not permitted to leave his duty, without the permission of his superiors. In the present case plea of sudden illness of the daughter of the appellant could have been taken into consideration if the appellant like a dutiful Government servant had arranged to get the Cinema checked by someone else in his absence on behalf of the appellant, with refunds to the plea that the authorized officer was not competent to award this minor penalty when the Enquiry Officer had only recommended for administering of warning we find it without force as such power does vest in the said functioning. With regard to the procedure adopted in the case of appellant we do not find any irregularity so committed, as first an Enquiry Officer was duly appointed and after the report of the Enquiry Officer, the authorized officer used his discretion in a judicious manner, by imposing a minor penalty, taking a lenient view of the circumstances in favour of the appellant. We have also looked into the charge-sheet and statement of allegation which clearly state the charges and do not leave the appellant in doubt.
The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer so it cannot be said that he was not aware as to who was the Enquiry Officer in this case. In case of minor penalty the authorized officer could have straightaway imposed the same under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, but in the above case full opportunity was afforded to the appellant through an enquiry which was conducted against him. The appellant was also heard by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Lahore as is clear from his order. The charge-sheet and statement of allegation are in no way contrary to each other but in fact the charge-sheet is based on the actual fact as stated in the statement of allegation.
5.
5. Under the circumstances we do not find any force in this appeal which we proceed to dismiss in limine.