' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Naseeb Ahmad Khan, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Sahiwal, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, i974, against the order, dated 28th March, 1983 passed by the Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan Division, Multan, whereby the respondent rejected the representation of the appellant.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the remarks of censure be declared as of DO legal effect and the entry of the same be struck of from the service record of the appellant.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Sub-Inspector Mian Channu in 1975, when under the order of the then Excise and Taxation Officer he was ordered to perform his duties at Mela Abdul Hakeem from 20th June, 1973 to 22nd June, 1973 and he remained on duty during this period at Mela Abdul Hakeem and charged T. A. Etc. Of this period. A raid was made on Naz Cinema, Mian Channu and it was found that there was some evasion of entertainment duty by the said management of the Naz Cinema. The appellant was found negligent of the duty and a penalty of censure was inflicted upon him for the said evasion but without taking recourse to Efficiency and Discipline Rules. This censure has found way in the service record of the appellant and the same was communicated to him after a lapse of more than 3 years. He filed a representation immediately for the same and the case was decided in the year 1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assist, ed by the representative 91 the Department and have penned the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that basically the appellant cannot be made responsible for evasion committed by the management of Naz Cinema, Mian Channu, as he was posted to look after the work at Mela Abdul Hakeem from 20th June, 1973 to 22nd June, 1973, and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, this fact has been fully established on the record by Annexures "A and B".
6. With regard to the penalty of censure, it has been argued that censure is a Punishment, and the same can only be awarded to a person by taking resort to Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It has been pointed out that in this case there is nothing on the record to show that any such procedure was adopted or any other step for disciplinary action against the appellant regarding evasion of entertainment duty while he was posted as Sub-Inspector, Mian Channu was taken. It has been urged that the respondent has clearly admitted a fact that relevant file of the case as per report of the office was not forthcoming, and therefore, a case was registered with the Police to trace the same.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant was not entitled to any show-cause notice, when bis superiors chose to record adverse entry into his A. C. R. However, he has not been able to defend the stand of the appellant that the penalty of censure cannot be imposed upon without taking action under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have no hesitation to bold that censure by itself is a penalty, which can only be imposed upon a civil servant, after he has been given a show-cause notice to defend himself, accompanied with the statement of allegations etc. In the present case, what we find is that there is no material available with the respondent to show that any proceedings were ever initiated against the appellant which resulted into this disputed penalty and what has actually occurred is that instead of communicating the sentence to the appellant, an entry of the said censure has been incorporated into his A. C. R. It is further amazing that the appellant was informed after a lapse of 3 years, that once upon a time, for certain act of omission and commission, he was visited with penalty of censure, the procedure which is only adopted vis-a-vis adverse assessment of the work and conduct of a civil servant duly initiated by the Reporting Officer and countersigned by the Countersigning Officer. If the appellant had done anything, which was considered a misconduct on his part, the proper course should have been to issue him a show-cause notice accompanied by statement of allegations and then to proceed against him in accordance with rules laid down in this behalf. After fulfilling all the requirements of the E & D Rules, the Authorised Officer would be the competent authority to visit the appellant with any penalty which he considered proper according to the nature of the lapse at the relevant time. After pronouncement of the punishment, a civil servant could then avail his legal remedy either to file appeal against the penalty to the next higher authority and would also be entitled to approach this Tribunal after exhausting the departmental remedies so available to him as laid down under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. The procedure of A. C. R. Is absolutely different. According to the instructions laid down in this behalf the Reporting Officer is within his purview to initiate adverse entry in the A. C. R. Of the subordinate for the fiscal year without any delay and the same has to be countersigned by the countersigning authority. A civil servant is then entitled to file review before the next higher authority for expunction of the same and can also avail remedy before this Tribunal, when the said review has been finally rejected. In the present case, we are at a loss to understand how A. C. R. Was allowed to contain penalty of Censure which can only be visited through an independent procedure as mentioned in our earlier part of our judgment. A civil servant has been informed that once upon a time in the year 1973, some action was initiated against him and penalty of censure was entered into his A. C.
R. As a result of such action to which he was never made a party. He was informed of this incident after a lapse of more than 3 years. It will be useful to observe that there is nothing on the record to show as per admission made in the impugned order that there was any record available to prove the same. In these circumstances, we had no alternative but to set aside the impugned order as unlawful as well as without any foundation. We are constrained to observe that the impugned order, dated 28th March, 1983, passed by the Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan, is an order which is devoid of any logic and contradictory in nature as were without any sense of proportion. The authority which passed this order should have taken notice of these points which we have mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment and should have itself given relief to the appellant without any wastage of time.
9. In the light of the above, we proceed to accept the appeal set aside the impugned order and hold that neither penalty of censure was justified nor the same can in any manner be allowed to stand on the A. C. R. Of the appellant. We, therefore, direct that the same may be removed from the A. C. R. Of the appellant as if it was never visited upon him. There will be no order as to costs.