' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Sh. Abdul Waheed, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order, dated 20th February, 1984, passed by respondent. He has impleaded the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 20th February, 1984, passed by respondent be set aside and appeal-: be accepted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi in September, 1981, the said tehsil was inspected by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan who thereafter sent a detailed inspection note for annotation reply. The then Tehsildar, Mailsi dealt with the inspection note and after preparing its annotation reply, sent the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari, without routing through the appellant, who further sent it to the Commissioner. Multan Division, Multan. This case remained in the office of the Commissioner for about 5 months and thereafter it was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari, vide his D.
0. No, GB-22-642/82, dated 23rd May, 1982, in which it was desired by the Commissioner that the whole annotation reply submitted by Tehsildar Mailsi be attested/verified by the Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi. The Deputy Commissioner, Vehari sent the note to the appellant for doing the needful. The appellant verified and attested the said annotation prepared by the Tehsildar for onward transmission to the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan. Meanwhile the appellant was transferred from Mailsi District Vehari to Lodhran District Multan, by the learned Commissioner, Multan. However, the learned Commissioner, Multan Division called for the explanation of the appellant for causing delay in the submission of annotation reply. The appellant sent his explanation and in the last para. Stated that "I do not think that I am negligent anywhere. However, if my explanation is not considered satisfactory and still it is attributed to my negligence then the same is regretted". To this the learned Commissioner expressed his displeasure in his D.
0. Letter No, GB-22-642J83, dated 16th February, 1983, by observing as under :- "I take particular objection to the last para. Of your above mentioned letter. It speaks of an officer of very low quality who has no sense of proportion. I, therefore, write this letter to you as a note of warning to be careful in future in the discharge of your official function. I am requesting the D. C.
Multan to keep a watch on your general conduct."
' The appellant took exception to this D.
0. Letter and made a representation, dated 21st February, 1983 to the Provincial Government, of course, through proper channel. Having received the representation, the Commissioner, Multan Division, immediately directed his Deputy Commissioner, Multan and A.D.C. (G) Multan to convey the appellant that he should relinquish the charge as A. C. Lodhran immediately and report to the Divisional Headquarter. This message was firstly conveyed to the appellant by the said two officers but he after relinquishing the charge, proceeded to report at Lahore with the Services, General Administration and Information Department. When this matter came to the notice of the Government through a D.
0. Letter by the learned Commissioner, Multan, the appellant was charge-sheeted and Mr. Safdarullah Khan, the then Deputy Secretary (Central), S&GAI Department was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to Government.
After examining the report, the Government called the appellant for personal hearing. He again received another letter, dated 26th November, 1983, for the same purpose with the addition in the said letter that Government wanted to impose one of the major penalties prescribed in rule 4 of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice and after hearing the appellant, recommended major penalty. The Chief Secretary Punjab, sent the report to the Member, Board of Revenue who called the appellant for 9th January, 1984, vide No, 6279-83/PSMBR (C) 17-XII-83, dated 20th February, 1984, The Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, after taking all the circumstances of the case in view, he recommended minor punishment of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect, and a censure. According to the learned Member, Board of Revenue it would meet the end of justice. The respondent Chief Secretary Punjab. Imposed upon the appellant minor penalty of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect on the charge of misconduct having been proved against him. This order was passed on 14th February, 1984. Thereafter, the appellant has filed further appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, before the worthy Governor which has not been decided and the appellant has approached this Tribunal after expiry of 90 days. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Enquiry Officer Mr. Safdarullah Khan has categorically observed in his finding that in this particular case it was not established that the A.C. Received exact order that he should report to the Commissioner's office. He has relied on further observation of the learned Enquiry Officer which are as under :- "In this particular case it is not established that A.C. Received the exact orders that he should report to the Commissioner Office. If he could relinquish the charge with case there was no insurmountable difficulty in not reporting to the Commissioner's office. In normal practice he relinquished the charge in good faith and reported to the S&GAD for further posting. S&GAD did not advise him to go back and seek orders from the Commissioner for further posting."
' It has been vehemently argued that the learned Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that element of personal vanity on the one side and the feeling of humiliation suffered on the other end influenced the entire course of events which generated a scene of confrontation which could have been avoided if the Commissioner had conveyed his orders in writing and had avoided the various channels to convey his orders telephonically. According to the learned counsel with this positive finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Additional Chief Secretary or the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and ultimately the learned Chief Secretary (Authority) could not hold the appellant guilty of the charges. According to him the main charge against the appellant was that although he had been ordered to relinquish the charge and report to the Divisional Headquarters he proceeded directly to Lahore, which he should not have done so. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant through his learned counsel that in fact the Commissioner felt hurt by the reply of the appellant and his representation which he had filed through proper channel to the Government, concluding therein that if his request, so incorporated in the said representation was not accepted, his resignation from the office be entertained. In nut-shell the case of the appellant is that the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, used some derogatery language against him which hurt his pride as self-respecting person and all this happened because of the said language so used by the Commissioner. It has been stoutly denied that the appellant had no intention in any manner whatsoever to defy the order of the learned Commissioner as he relinquished charge at once and had no other alternative but to report to the Headquarter when there was nothing in black and white to act upon.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer could not be termed as findings according to inquiry record so conducted by him and the result arrived at by him was hypothetical by ignoring the evidence on record which positively proved that the appellant had been informed on telephone by the senior officers to relinquish the charge and report to the Commissioner's Office. It has been further argued that learned Additional Chief Secretary has rightly taken into consideration this point and was justified in concluding that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was neither here nor there as the said Enquiry Officer had failed to discuss the merits of the evidence of P. Ws. So recorded by him during the course of the said enquiry against the appellant. It has been further submitted that the learned Additional Chief Secretary was within his prerogative to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer as his finding was based on record, while the finding of the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the evidence so recorded by him during the course of such enquiry.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and are of the considered opinion that we are not required to give verdict as to what should have been written by the A. C. Or the learned Commissioner as this is not the issue before us. We are only concerned with the charge which relates to the controversy whether the appellant when informed by the A,D.C. (G) and A. C. (G) on behalf of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, that he should relinquish the charge and report to the Commissioner's office, did so or not.- The plea of the appellant in this case is that he did not receive any such message which called upon him to report to the Commissioner's Office and was only told by the A.D.C. (G) and A. C. (G) that he should relinquish the charge of the post. According to the appellant's stand that when he was not told to report to Commissioner's Office, he had the only alternative to report to the headquarters and nothing else.
What we have to find is whether the appellant did receive the said message which asked him to relinquish the charge as well as to report to the Commissioner's Office or not. We have read the finding of the Enquiry Officer carefully and find that he has positively sustained to discuss the evidence so recorded by him. The evidence consists of two officers Sardar Alam Khan, A.C. (G), Multan and Mr. Z afar Mahmood, A.D.C. (G), Multan on oath alongwith Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz, Stenotypist D.C's Office, Multan. There is also a confidential letter on record written to the Commissioner Multan by the then Deputy Commissioner, Multan, Mian Faiz Karim. Sardar Alam Khan, A. C. (0) and Mr. Zafar Mahmood, A.D.C. (G) have clearly indicated on oath that they did inform the appellant to relinquish the charge of A.C. Lodhran and report to the Commissioner's office. These two witnesses were cross-examined by the appellant but he was unable to shake their testimony or to prove that their evidence was unworthy of reliance. Similarly there is documentary evidence on record in the form of a letter from Mian Faiz Karim, ex-Deputy Commissioner, Multan to the learned Commissioner, Multan in which it has been stated in the end as under :- "A.D.C, (G) informed that the A.C. Stated that he would not report to the Commissioner's Office, Multan."
' With this positive evidence on record in the form of testimony of two senior officers and a letter of Deputy Commissioner, Multan, we fail to understand why the learned Enquiry Officer did not discuss the said evidence as well as the value of the said letter and straightaway came to the conclusion that it has not been proved that the appellant was not conveyed the message to report to the Commissioner's office. With regard to the observation of the second part made by the learned Enquiry Officer that he was not asked by A.G.C/D to go back to the Commissioner's Office, we see the same as unwarranted. The appellant had no business to report to the SGA&I Department, when he bad been told to report to the Commissioner's Office, particularly in view of the fact that it was the Commissioner who had to post him within his Division, which he was competent to do so and SGA&I Department would not come into display in any manner for his further posting. This is why the SGA&I Department ignored his presence and ultimately he was suspended and charge-sheeted for the purpose of regular enquiry. Learned Additional Chief Secretary in his detailed recommendations has taken into consideration all these points and we are in accord with him that the appellant did receive the message to relinquish the charge and report to the Commissioner's Office but he purposely defied, the said order and went to the extent to resign from service after suggesting certain alternative to Government. As we have already said in the earlier part of our judgment that we will not like to adjudicate on the controversy as to what appellant should have written and what should have been the reaction of the Commissioner, as this is not the case for adjudication before us. However, we are fully satisfied from the evidence on record that the appellant was conveyed the message by two witnesses who appeared before the Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry and he has committed an act of defiance by proceeding to Lahore, and we have no justification to differ with the two well-considered recommendations of the Additional Chief Secretary and Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, and with the final decision of the learned Chief Secretary Punjab, who agreed with the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and imposed minor penalty of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect.
8. The result is, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.