' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Rahim Bakhsh has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and the Full Board, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 27th February, 1982/14th March, 1982, 29th May, 1982 and 18th July, 1982, be set aside and the appellant's increments be restored.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, reported against the appellant, who was at that time, Consolidation Officer Gujrat, for wilful absence from duty and lack of interest in consolidation work. Consequently the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, recommended to the Board of Revenue that the appellant be placed under suspension and proceeded under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. Accordingly the appellant was placed under suspension and Commissioner was authorised to proceed against him. The Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division Rawalpindi, as Authorised Officer served the appellant with a charge-sheet and entrusted the enquiry to E. A. C. (R) Gujrat. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report, dated 8th October, 1981, to the Commissioner. According to his findings the charges against the appellant at para. 3 (i) and (iii) were proved but the charge at 3 (ii) ibid relating to Muharram duty was found by the Enquiry Officer to be incorrect as prior permission of M. B. R. (Cons.) for detailing the appellant on duty on other than consolidation work had not been obtained. The Commissioner, therefore, recommended that the appellant be compulsorily retired from service. However, the learned Member, Board of Revenue after considering the inquiry report and recommendation of the Authorised Officer, compulsorily retired the appellant. The appellant filed appeal before the Full Board of Revenue, according to their judgment, dated 29th May, 1982, the appellant was re- instated in service and his punishment reduced to stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of the entire case alongwith the judgment of the Full Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it will be hardly useful to recount the entire background of the case as envisaged in the judgment of the Board of Revenue and recommendation of the Commissioner and he would mainly rely on the final judgment of the Full Board, of the Board of Revenue Punjab, which is also impugned before us. According to the learned counsel the Full Board, Board of Revenue, have dropped the charge No, (ii) as well with regard to his wilful absence and found that the accused was genuinely sick. The only charge against the appellant, which according to the Full Board, stood proved was that he was responsible for the delay in completing the consolidation work of village Chakrian, tehsil and district Gujrat. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Full Board have observed that the first charge stood only technically proved against the appellant, therefore, it can be said that the learned Members were fully satisfied that the gravamen of the charge was not so serious and if at all any lapse had occurred, it was of a technical nature. Learned counsel has elaborated his arguments by submitting that the charge No, (iii) only that he had failed to complete the consolidation work of village Chakrian within the period agreed by him i. e. Three months. It has been pointed out that the area of village Chakrian was 2,906 acres and it involved Jadeed measurement. According to learned counsel the work was taken in hand on 28th July, 1978 and according to the schedule prescribed under the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue of 1978, for the guidance of the Consolidation staff only 400 acres of Jadeed measurement could have been completed during the six months period. In this manner the total area of 2,906 acres should have consumed 3 years 7 months and 18 days, to complete consolidation. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that to hold the appellant guilty for an agreed time of 3 months, would be a conclusion quite unfair as well as unreasonable. The appellant might have been out of zeal or pressure from his superiors, agreed to make a tall claim to complete the work in 3 months time, which under the rules as well as according to the area, required a period of more than 3 years. He has also referred to the observations of the learned Members that there was no complaint of inefficiency and integrity against the appellant in any manner of whatsoever and he was found to be a willing worker. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that when the appellant had been found efficient as well as man of integrity and was exonerated from all other charges to mar his career for a technical flaw, would indeed be a very harsh treatment, met out to him and likely to ruin his further career in his service.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the respondents and contended that the punishment so awarded to the appellant was quite in conformity with the lapse of the appellant.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the judgment of the Full Board, Board of Revenue, Punjab, and do find that the appellant has been punished with stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect only on the ground that he failed to complete the consolidation work within 3 months, despite his assurance so made by him to his superiors. We would have certainly confirmed the judgment of Full Board of the Board of Revenue as it was, if it had taken into consideration instructions so laid down by itself for completion of consolidation work. What we find is that these instructions have not been adverted to by the learned Members which are contained in para. 17 and the same were issued by it in the year 1978, for the guidance of Consolidation Staff.
These are their own instructions and the appellant was bound to follow and according to the said instructions, an area of 400 acres was required to be completed within 6 months. If this be the criteria, then the period to complete 2,906 Acres would come to 3 years 7 months and 18 days and thus the consolidation of the said village would have been completed on 17th October, 1982. This being the instruction of the Board of Revenue itself, we do not understand how the appellant could be held guilty technically for his failure to fulfil his commitment which he might have so foolishly made. No body can claim to perform such things and if such tall claim is made, the same should be brushed aside as being physically not possible, and a civil servant should be told to remain within the limits of the rules, which are always made after careful consideration, keeping in view the normal capacity of those, who are entrusted with such work. However it is a matter of common knowledge that many a time a civil servant out of uncalled for zeal on sometime just to earn pleasure of the superiors, will make offer to perform something which would be beyond his capacity. It seems that appellant in these circumstances, agreed to perform something impossible and later on failed to accomplish the said task as it was not humanly possible. We have seen the rules as laid down by the Board of Revenue, so quoted above and cannot doubt the wisdom of the makers of such rules, which we are sure, were framed keeping in view the practical difficulties and the capacity of the revenue staff to achieve a target. If the learned Members of the Board of Revenue would have taken this important aspect of the case which seems to have not been brought to their notice they would have not arrived at the conclusion on which they arrived and would not have visited the appellant with this minor penalty. We also find that the word 'with cumulative effect' in regard to stoppage of increments is also misconceived, because under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the increment of a civil servant can only be stopped 'without cumulative effect'.
8. In view of the fact that the appellant has not been found inefficient as well as dishonest officer, and his agreement, if any, was strictly against the Rules prescribed for such work by the Board of Revenue itself, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders entitling the appellant to draw full back benefits. However, there will be no order as to costs.