' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Government of the Punjab, through Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department Lahore as repondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order dated 6th January, 1983 passed by respondent whereby appellant has been removed from service be set aside and he be reinstated with all the back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Sub-Divisional Officer in the Peoples Work Programme during the year 1972-73 at Mianwali. During the tenure at Mianwali a work namely construction of Road Behal Town, Behal Railway Station length one mile was entrusted to the appellant. The Mianwali District was divided into two Sub-Divisions i,e, Sub-Division consisting of rensil Mianwali and Tehsil Isakhel, and Sub-Division consisting of Tehsil Bakhar. According to the record of this case the appellant was incharge of Sub-Division Mianwali, Tehsil Isakhel, while Qazi Muhammad Shafi was incharge of Bakhar Sub-Division. The technical sanction of the work was obtained from the Executive Engineer, Mianwali. After this Deputy Commissioner/Project Director invited the tenders on 17th February, 1973 for the execution of this project. Three contractors Messrs Ghulam Rasool Khan, Muhammad Amir and Muhammad Zaman Khan submitted their tenders but these were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. On the recommendation fresh tenders were invited from the contractors on 28th February, 1973 and two contractors namely Ghulam Rasool Khan and Muhammad Amir participated. The Finance Committee recommended the tender of Mr. Ghulam Rasool being the lowest one. The work was taken into hand in the Sub- Division of Qazi Muhammad Shafi and the contractor received running payment on C. F. T. Rate without any protest, some time latter Qazi Muhammad Shafi requested for the revision of the rate on the ground that as the road was approved by the Finance Committee on S. F. T. Basis, therefore, the contractor was entitled to enhance payment. This was approved by the Deputy Commissioner/Project Director and the payment was made on the enhanced rate on the basis of C. F. T. In consequence thereof the appellant was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Commissioner on 17th February, 1977 as to why payment has been made on S. F. T. Basis wherein the same has earlier been made on C. F. T. Basis. The appellant submitted his reply. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. However, a de-novo enquiry was held and Mr. Qazi was also included in the same. In this matter ' Mr. Farid-ud-Din, Additional Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department was appointed as authorised officer. Both the persons were charge-sheeted. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge sheet. After the completion of enquiry both the persons were heard in person. The appellant was removed from service whereas Mr. Qazi Muhammad Shafi was imposed minor penalty of stoppage of two increments. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney with the assistance of the representative of the Department. The learned counsel has laid stress on the admitted fact that the work in hand was carried by Qazi Muhammad Shafi who supervised the work and also called the revised sanction stealthly from the Executive Engineer Highway directly without bringing into the notice of the Deputy Commissioner/Project Director. According to the learned counsel undoubtedly the original estimate was prepared under the signature of appellant and word "S. F. T." did creep in which, according to the learned counsel, was a typographical mistake. He has further gone to the extent to say that even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that word "S. F. T." was inserted intentionally by the appellant then the District Engineer (Mr. Qazi) who was a senior officer and incharge of the work should have smelled rat and should have asked the appellant as to how that was possible, but on the other hand he on the strength of this insertion got the estimate prepared on enhanced rate. It has been vehemently argued that it was Mr. Qazi who very quietly made two running payment to the contractor and later on, it was under his signature that report was drawn for the enhancement of the rate in favour of the contractor on the basis of S. F. T. It has been argued that Mr. Qazi had blue eyes while the appellant had yellow and, therefore, the both have been treated with different yard sticks. Apparently the appellant has been dismissed and in case of Mr. Qazi only two increments have been stopped.
5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that it was within the discretion of the authority to treat the appellant and the District Engineer the way he liked and no exception can be taken to his decision or judgment which he arrived at on the basis of enquiry report. According to fhe learned District Attorney the initial mischief was done by the appellant and the District Engineer acted on the insertion of "S. F. T." which was already part of said agreement.
6. We have given out anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the official record of this case carefully. The fact of the matter is that it is on record that one mile road under construction did not fall under the jurisdiction of the appellant but was within the jurisdiction of Qazi Muhammad Shafi, District Engineer who was incharge of that Sub Division.
Undoubtedly the original bill prepared was of two different categories i,e, S. F. T. Basis and C. F. T.
Basis. It is also on the record that Mr. Qazi made two running payments on C. F. T. Basis but later on Mr. Qazi got the same enhanced by the Deputy Commissioner/Project Director as the original contract did provide payment on S. F. T. Basis. We were confronted with a situation which was technical in nature as to the mode of payment. The question to be resolved was whether the normal mode of payment in such cases would be on the basis of C. F. T. Or S. F. T. To resolve this issue, we called upon an Executive Engineer who was sitting in the Court, in connection with some other matter and sought his assistance. He very candidly stated that mode of payment in such cases is always on C. F. T. Basis and never on S. F. T. Basis. He went to the extent to state that if in the agreement word "S. F. T." has been inserted it should have alerted the senior officer and he should have at once called for the explanation of his subordinate. After hearing the reply we thoroughly perused the record of this case and found that it was Qazi Muhammad Shafi District Engineer who recommended the payment on "S. F. T." basis and got it approved by the Deputy Commissioner /Project Director and paid the amount to the contractor. We have no hesitation to hold that the conduct of the District Engineer was highly suspicious as he blindly accepted the agreement and not only made the payment to the contractors at his own level but got the same approved under his report by the Deputy Commissioner/Project Director. In this way we cannot exenorate him of the fact that we should have fully realized that such like entry was not only mischievous but also collusive in nature. In this manner we are in agreement with the learned counsel that Qazi Muhammad Shafi has received a favourable treatment at the hands of his superiors but as his case is not before us we cannot enhance his punishment. In view of above what we find is that appellant whose guilt is much lesser than that of Mr. Qazi, should receive a treatment at least at par with the main character of this drama.
7. The result is that we set aside the impugned order and reinstate the appellant back to service with forfeiture his two increments and B thus bringing him at par with Qazi Muhammad Shafi who happened to have blue eyes.