' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Abdul Rashid has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Member, Board of Revenue (S&R Wing), Government of the Punjab Lahore and the Secretary (Admn), Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing, Board of Revenue, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 22-6-1983, passed by respondent No,2, whereby the appellant has been reverted from the post of Senior Clerk to the post of Junior Clerk, be declared illegal and of no legal effect.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as senior clerk in the department was raided on 1-8-1977, by a Magistrate and an F.I.R. Was recorded in the said case. The case was tried by the Summary Military Court under section 161, P.P.C. And 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act and 7 M.L.R., which resulted into the sentence of six months and also five lashes. The appellant was dismissed from service by the respondents, w,e,f, 3-1-1978, in consequence of said conviction.
However, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the Lahore High Court and his Lordship Mr. Justice Shafi-ur-Rehman vide his judgment, dated 16-4-1978, set aside the conviction as being without any authority and of no legal effect. Later on the case was referred to the Anti-Corruption Department as to whether they would like to proceed against the appellant in the court of law that the same was replied in negative. In consequence of the latter events so mentioned above, the appellant was reinstated in service vide order, dated 14-3-1979. However, departmental proceedings were taken up against the appellant and a charge-sheet was issued in this regard.
Appellant submitted reply to the said charge-sheet. An enquiry was conducted against him and he was also given opportunity of personal hearing. However, the authority inflicted major penalty of reduction from the rank of Senior Clerk to that of Junior Clerk with a condition that if he would not accept the post of Junior Clerk, he would be considered to have been removed from service. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the respondents have reinstated him in compliance with the judgment of the Lahore High Court against Summary Military Court, he has no authority to punish the appellant on the same charges which' had already been adjudicated. It has been further argued that even the Anti-Corruption Department did not find it reasonable to start proceedings against him. The grievance has been made that when the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant, it did not lie, with the competent authority to revert him from the post of Senior Clerk' to the post of Junior Clerk specifically when the appellant has never worked as Junior Clerk in the Department as he was initially reruited as Senior Clerk.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant was caught red handed in a raid, which was arranged by the Anti-Corruption Department and tainted money was recovered from him. According to the learned District Attorney, a person of such character should have been thrown out of service without any conception, but keeping in view his earlier good record and promise of good behaviour in future, the authority has taken a lenient view, for which the appellant should thank to his star that he is still in service. With regard to the acquittal order in his favour from the Lahore High Court, it has been submitted that it was an acquittal on technical point and not on merits. While referring to the report of the Enquiry Officer, learned District Attorney has submitted that the Enquiry Officer was only motivated in his favour when he found that the appellant has suffered lot of agony trial and conviction particularly in view of the fact that the complainant was not forthcoming before him. While referring to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant cannot be reduced in rank, as he was recruited initially as senior clerk and thus could not be elevated to his position which he never occupied in service, learned District Attorney has submitted that even in this situation the Hon'ble Tribunal should not loose against an established fact that the appellant has himself accepted the position of junior clerk and his working in consequence of the impugned order. According to the learned District Attorney such like accusation would be an act of estoppel against the appellant as he could not agitate against the same order by virtue of which he is now in service.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the acquittal of the appellant from the Lahore High Court was simply on technical ground, whereas the fact stood established against him on record, that he was caught red handed and tainted money was recovered from his person. Undoubtedly the appellant has been favourably commented upon by the Enquiry Officer but under the Rules the Authorised Officer and the Authority are under no obligation to agree with the recommendations particularly, when they found that such like observation in favour of the appellant did not touch the merits of the case but on the other hand only devolved on his mission which suffered the trial, enquiry/conviction. We have seen the impugned order and find that the appellant was clearly told on 22-6-1983 that if he refused to accept the post of Junior Clerk, which was being offered to him, he would be considered to have been removed from service, the appellant in our view has an ample choice to decline to accept such offer of not joining as Junior Clerk and would have within his rights to agitate the matter before the competent forum. We are fully in accord with the learned District Attorney that when the appellant has himself accepted the post of Junior Clerk, he would be considered to have been employed fresh on the said post and therefore, it cannot be said that he has been reduced in rank.
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the competent authority has taken a correct view and the grievance of the appellant against the same is without any merit. The appeal is therefore, dismissed as being without any merit. However, there will be no order as to costs.