' Syed Shaukat Hussain Bokhari, Junior Clerk, Commissioner's Office, Bahawalpur, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 14th December, 1983 and 13th June, 1984 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Ali Shah approached the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur for his appointment as Honorary Magistrate. However, his case was not recommended by the Commissioner and order to this effect was handed over in this Type Branch in which the appellant was working at the relevant time. He typed the order as it was and handed over the same in the relevant branch. Events disclosed that at some stage the order was changed into recommendation and the same was forwarded to the Home Department and on the strength of the same Muhammad All Shah was inducted as Honorary Magistrate. When this matter came to the notice of the learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, he immediately banded over Syed Shaukat Hussain Bukhari, appellant and Abdur Rehman to the Police without registration of the case. Later on departmental enquiry was instituted against both of them in which Abdur Rehman made a clean breast of the affair and was dismissed accordingly.
The appellant also came within the purview of the departmental enquiry and it was found by the Enquiry Officer that although he was not directly involved yet he did evince his interest in Muhammad All Shah by recommending his case to the authority. On this score learned Commissioner found him guilty and visited him with minor penalty of stoppage of increments for three years with cumulative effect. He filed appeal before the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, which was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney at length and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. A perusal of the recommendation of the Authorised Officer, inquiry report and the order of the learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, does reveal that the same are not based on positive evidence but on conjectures. They have presumed that as Abdur Rehman has confessed and also involved the appellant to the extent of approaching him in favour of Muhammad Ali Shah, therefore, be would be guilty as the same. I am afraid this is not the legal conclusion, of confession o co-accused has always been taken with a pinch of salt as the person who is so roped has not been given a chance to defend. The stand of the appellant throughout has been that his duty was that of typist, which he honestly performed and passed on the papers to the relevant Branch, after doing so he washed of his hands and cannot be considered guilty for what happened latter. This is on the record that he has been exonerated from grave charge and has only been punished because he told so before the Police that he did recommend this case to Ihsan Bhatti. With regard to the statement before the Police, the law is very clear, it can never be used against a person who makes the same and no sanctity is attached to the same. It may be possible that a person of his small status while being integrated by the police at a higher level might have been coerced into statement but the same according to law, cannot be used as evidence against him, for arriving at a punishment major or minor.
6. After going through the entire record of this case I am of the considered opinion that the role attributed to the appellant is based on conjectural evidence, therefore, the penalty so imposed upon him does not seem justified. Resultantly, I accept the appeal set aside the impugned orders.
There will be no order as to costs.