' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (Members).-Abdul Waheed ex-Junior Clerk, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Hasilpur has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents Nos, 1 to 3 mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, dated 31st May, 1983 and Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, dated 20th October, 1983 be set aside and the appellant be reinstated with back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Junior Clerk in the Office of the Tehsildar (Recovery), Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Bahawalpur was charge-sheeted on the following allegations :-
(a) While posted as peon, Sub-Tehsil Khairpur Tamewali, he had embezzled Rs, 400 recovered by him on 27th February, 1973 as arrears of land revenue from Muhammad Yar, Lambardar of village Nari.
(b) He tampered with Register R. L. Il of village Bhaini by making a note regarding the resumption of land allotted to Abdul Ghafoor vide R. L. II No, 1 ; and
(c) He was in the habit of absenting himself without leave and absented himself from 11th November, 1976 to 18th November, 1976.
' The appellant submitted reply to the above charge-sheet. The enquiry was also conducted against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer held the accused official guilty of charges Nos, (a) and
(b) and exonerated him from charge No, (c) mentioned above. On receipt of the enquiry report the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Bahawalpur considered the case of the appellant. As the appellant was found guilty of two charges a penalty of removal from service vide his order, dated 31st May, 1983 was imposed upon the appellant. The appellant made an appeal to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur which was rejected vide his order, dated 20th October, 1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e,, Mr. M. M. Saleem Kureja, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representive of the respondents, on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been held guilty of two charges that he misappropriated Rs, 400 received from Muhammad Yar, Lambardar and tampering with of R. L. II and has been exonerated from the third charge of wilful absence from duty. He has submitted that the appellant has been held guilty of misappropriation of 400 on fictitious evidence of Lambardar but actually he was responsible for this act. The Lambardar did not produce any original receipt when the enquiry was conducted against the n appellant and thus it could not be proved that the appellant was guilty of this charge. Lambardar, Muhammad Yar kept silent for full 10 years meaning that the appellant was not guilty of this alleged misappropriation but false allegation had been alleged against the appellant by the said Lamberdar Muhammad Yar. As far as charge of tampering with R. L. II is concerned, no tampering was done by the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the matter as well. So-called tampering has been made by some one else and the appellant is not guilty of this charge at all.
Concluding his argument the appellant's counsel has prayed that the appellant has been punished arbitrarily without proving the charges Nos: 1 and 2 against him, the impugned orders have been passed against the facts of the case and are, thus, unlawful.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and detailed impugned orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur and the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. He has submitted that the perusal of the impugned orders clearly show that the appellant has been held guilty of misconduct after charges Nos, 1 and 2 were duly proved by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, appellant has been punished correctly, lawfully and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid orders
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. The appellant has been finally held guilty for the following two charges :-
(a) While posted as peon, Sub-Tehsil Khairpur Tamewali, he had embazzled Rs, 400 recovered by him on 27th February, 1973 as arrears of land revenue from Muhammad Yar, Lambardar of village Nari.
(b) He tampered with Register R. L. II of village Bhaini by making a note regarding the resumption of land allotted to Abdul Ghafoor vide R. L. II No, 1.
' We have also carefully considered the comments of Ch. Muhammad Sharif, Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, submitted on the appeal of the appellant which are reproduced below "It is incorrect. The appellant was given full opportunity to defend him even in my Court. At his request the Lambardar (Muhammad Yar) was summoned by me who testified in the presence of the appellant in my Court that he (appellant) received Rs, 400 to deposit with the Government Treasury. The Lambardar categorically denied to have received the said money back. The Lambardar produced the original receipt for Rs, 400 given by the appellant. The allegation of tampering with the entries of R. L. II was also established against him. After careful consideration of the arguments of the appellant and thorough perusal of the record the impugned order was passed which being legal and operative, may kindly be upheld."
We fully agree with the above view point of the Commissioner and are of the considered opinion that the appellant is of misconduct for charges (a) and (b) mentioned above which stood against the appellant. However, we are also of the considered opinion that the punishment awarded to the appellant is not in consonance with his guilt and he has been harshly punished.
7. The result is that the punishment so awarded is modified/varied as follows
(1) Censure.
(2) Stoppage of annual increments for two years without cumulative effect.
' The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. The period for which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated leave without pay. The appeal is accepted to the above extent and the impugned orders are modified accordingly.
' There are no order as to costs.