' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Hamid Asghar, ExCopiest, Copying Agency, Office of the Deputy Commissioner Rawalpindi has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi and the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 14-5-1983 and 8-6-1983, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi and the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi respectively, be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was working as a copy clerk in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi in the year 1982. At that time he issued a copy of Mussavi of Khasra No,847, of village Rawalpindi for the year 1984-85 on the application of one Nazar Hussain. In the said copy he erased/deleted the figure of Mussavi i,e, '11' karam instead of '13' karam between outer north western corner of Khasra No,847. Later on it was declared that in fact the appellant entered the figure '12' instead of '11' on the copy prepared by the appellant for ulterior motive with the connivance of Nazar Hussain. A probe was made in the matter by the Magistrate 1st Class who came to a conclusion that the appellant has wilfully done so in order to benefit Nazar Hussain. On the result of this finding, the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi, respondent No,1, after hearing the appellant and examination of the record held the appellant guilty of the charge and dismissed him from service. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, who upheld the order of dismissal of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and have ourselves examined the original Mussavi which was summoned by us and have also perused the record of this case very carefully with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that very examination of the Mussavi shows that there was a chance of human error to read it, as there was a dot near the said figure of '11' karams which could lead the appellant to read as '12'. He has further submitted that the appellant has 30 years of service with unblemish record to his credit and he is aged 58 years. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that even if it is considered a lapse on the part of the appellant, the same can be ignored in accordance with the law as laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court of Pakistan as PLD 1977 SC 24.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that there is no ambiguity in the record. Learned District Attorney has referred the actual narration of the appellant himself and has pointed out that the reading of "12" in the place of '11' by him was intentional to help Nazar Hussain for ulterior motives. According to the learned District Attorney the appellant does not deserve any leniency and the punishment imposed upon him is correct.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have examined the record very carefully. The record shows that there is a dotted figure '11' in the Mussavi.
It is difficult to say whether the Mussavi was incorrect or that the same figure was interpolated by the appellant himself. There is no evidene on the record to this effect. Since the regular enquiry has not been conducted so this point will remain shrouded in mystry and the bona fide of the appellant would be presumed in his favour unless this point is proved in the regular enquiry against the appellant. We have also noticed that there is no evidence of ulterior motive or malice against the appellant. We are also conscious of the fact that there is a certified copy of the same document showing the figure '12' prepared by the Martial Law Authorities when the original Mussavi was produced by Abdul Majid (Annexure 'A').
8. In view of the above analysis of the case and keeping into consideration the lengthy service of the appellant with good record, we are of the considered opinion that punishment imposed upon him is very harsh. We are also of the considered view that the appellant with such a long service, should have been more careful and should have known that if the figure was illegible and controversial, he should have mentioned this defect when he prepared a copy of the Mussavi.
9. Result is that we set aside the impugned orders. The appellant is directed to be reinstated into service. We vary the punishment of dismissal from service and convert it to that of stoppage of two annual increments without future effect. The period for which the appellant A remained out of service shall be treated as leave of kind due. The appeal is accepted to the extent mentioned above.
' There will be no order as to costs.