' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Messrs Malik Muhammad Shafi, Maqsood Ahmad, Liaqat Sajjad and Abdul Ghani, have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders, dated 31st October, 1982 and 16th May, 1983. Passed by the Respondents. They have impleaded (in Appeals Nos, 443/377 of 1983 and 480/378 of 1983) the Government of the Punjab, through Chief Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and Mr. Muhammad Anwar Shariq, Additional Education Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore ; in Appeal No, 463/379/83 Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and in Appeal No, 464/380 of 1983, Government of the Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, and the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the impugned orders, dated 31st October, 1982 and 16th May, 1983, be declared as of no effect and may be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants Malik Muhammad Shafi and Maqsood Ahmad who serving as District Education Officers, were appointed as Members of the Inspection Committee to inspect the furniture manufactured by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation along-with Messrs Liaqat Sajjad and Abdul Ghani, who belonged to Polytechnic Institutes. In June, 1980, in the course of reviewing progress of A. D. P. 1978-80, the Governor's Inspection Team had found that the school furniture as supplied to the Education Department by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation was of substandard. A report, was, therefore, initiated and the Governor ordered that an inquiry into the matter should be held as to the supply of substandard and damaged school furniture/ equipment to the Education Department by Punjab Small Industries Corporation and to fix responsibility and apportion blame. A charge-sheet was issued to the appellants who submitted their respective replies which were found unsatisfactory. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Shariq, Additional Secretary Education, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the matter. He concluded his enquiry on 20th February, 1982 and found that all the appellants were guilty of negligence as well as failed to observe the instructions issued by the Government with regard to the inspection of the said material. A show-cause notice was issued in the names of the appellants who were afforded full opportunity of being heard in person and ultimately by the order of the Governor of the Punjab, the appellants were inflicted with major penalties as under :- {{TABLE TEXT}} Liaqat Sajjad Reduction in rank from Grade Grade 16. 17 to Abdul Ghani Reduction in rank from Grade 17 to Grade 16.
Malik Muhammad Reduction in rank form Grade 17 to Shafi Grade 16.
Maqsood Ahmad Reduction in rank from Grade 17 to Grade 16. {{TABLE TEXT}} ' The appellants Sled Review Petition to the said authority and the same stood rejected. Hence these appeals. '
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of the case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that none of the charges stood proved against the appellants and it was a case of misreading of evidence against them. It was vehemently argued that the job assigned to the appellants was beyond the scope of their casual performance and normal duties and they fully obeyed the instructions so issued by the Department while inspecting the material so supplied by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation. It was further argued that the appellants checked the material in accordance with the drawings and specifications so available with them but failed to secure the samples as none was supplied to them.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the stand of the Department in their reply placed on the record and has submitted that the loss caused to Government in this case was colossal which occurred due to the negligence of the appellants who were positively directed to compare the articles with the samples which the Manufacturers had to follow while manufacturing the said furniture/material. He has also argued that it was the duty of the appellants to make 100% verification according to the specification and samples and negligence lay on their part in the supply of substandard material to the Government Department.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have carefully perused the detailed Inquiry Report and the findings so arrived at by Mr. Muhammad Anwar Shariq, Enquiry Officer, and find that all the charges stood proved against them. The charges against them were as under :-
(a) They did not ask for samples of furniture items from Punjab Small Industries Corporation at the time of Inspection.
(b) They did not ensure that required quality of material had been used.
(c) They did not affix stamps on the furniture items inspected by them.
(d) They did not undertake 100 per cent inspection of the furniture.
(e) They gave wrong certificates on the basis of which final payments were received by Punjab Small Industries Corporation.
(f) They accepted substandard and unstamped furniture items although they were to accept only those furniture items which bore the stamp of the Central Inspection Committee.
8. The case of the appellants in fact is a case wherein all the appellants have thrown the responsibility on the shoulders of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation, but the fact of the matter is that this is a separate affair and for the lapse so committed by the said Department, a separate action was taken against the persons responsible for the same. In the present appeals what we have to adjudicate is whether the appellants did take care according to the instructions of the Government or they simply ignoring the same and caused loss to Government. Despite lengthy arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the appellants themselves, they have failed to satisfy this Tribunal that the furniture so inspected by them was compared vis-a-vis the samples and that 100% check was made by them by duly stamping of the inspected articles. In view of this unoontroverted position we cannot allow them to seek shelter behind the mistake of others. Actually the appellants did not take all care and casually checked the quality of the furniture, may be on the ground that the same was manufactured by the Government Agency but this would not be the circumstances to exonerate them from their own responsibilities. The learned Enquiry Officer has rightly pointed out that the appellants were found otherwise morally bound while making purchases at least to take that much care which an ordinary layman does, in case of personal purchases. We are also in agreement with the learned District Attorney in controverting the argument of the appellant vis-a-vis his stand that appellants were not conveyed any specific instructions regarding the affixation of seal through letter No, SO (P) 6-40/78, dated 10th November, 1979, that instructions on this point were available in the letter of previous year and appellants who were senior Education Officers should have known the previous instructions. In these circumstances we do not find any exception to the well-considered Inquiry Report as well as ultimate judgment of the competent authority in arriving at the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of gross negligence and failed to obey the instruction of the Government so given to them while declaring the fitness of the articles.
9. However, we have noticed that there is a legal flaw in the infliction of the punishments which is liable to be altered. We may point out here that out of four two appellant namely, Abdul Ghani and Liaqat Sajjad were initially appointed against a post of Grade-16, which was upgraged to Grade-17, by a notification of the Government. In this manner, they would be treated an initial appointees in Grade-17. This being so, nobody can be reverted to a lower grade which he never occupied, as reversions are always made from higher rank to the substantive rank only when it is found that a civil servant was holding such Grade initially. There can be no dispute with this settled position of law and thus we have no alternative but to vary the punishment of these two appellants by stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect as well as impose upon them the penalty of censure.
10. With regard to the two other appellants, as Malik Muhammad Shafi was holding N. P. S.-18 vide Notification No, 8/1-80/10646/Admn. I, dated 13th April, 1980, therefore, his reversion could be made to Grade-17 and not below, therefore, be stands reverted to N. P. S.-17. The penalty imposed upon the appellant Maqsood Ahmad, is correct and is hereby maintained.
11. Resultantly the appeals fail subject to the modification indicated in paras. 9 and 10 above. There will be no order as to costs.