Muhammad Ashraf, Excise and Taxation Inspector, Sargodha, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order of Director, Excise and Taxation, Sargodha and Faisalabad Division, Sargodha, dated 27-1-1983, whereby he partly accepted the appeal of the appellant against the order of Excise and Taxation Officer, Sargodha, dated 31-7-1982 and reduced the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments to one annual increment. The appellant has prayed that the above impugned order be set aside and the penalty imposed upon the appellant be remitted and appellant be allowed to draw his increment which has already fallen due to him on 1-12-1982. The appellant has impleaded the Director Excise and Taxation, Sargodha and Faisalabad Division, Sargodha and Excise and Taxation Officer, Sargodha. As respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Sargodha on 21-7-1982, the details are as per Annexure 'A'. The reply submitted by the appellant was considered by respondent No. 2 but was not found satisfactory and the appellant was imposed the minor penalty of stoppage of -two annual increments vide his order, dated 31-7-1982. The appellant made an appeal to respondent No. 1 who vide his order, dated 27-1-1983 reduced the punishment of the appellant to the extent of one annual increment instead of two annual increments. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the parties, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and have consulted the record carefully with their assistance.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent in the matter and has been unduly punished. There was no tax evasion as was indicated from the E. D.4 Register where the calculations were correct. This was only an omission on the part of the appellant regarding non-fixation of entertainment duty stamps, though not intentional and should not have been taken seriously. This omission was negligible and should have been ignored by the respondents as this omission could not come under the purview of the negligence of his duties.
Thus, the appellant being innocent, has been punished arbitrarily and without any justification.
5. The learned District Attorney has rebutted the above argument of the appellant's counsel and has relied upon the parawise comments and impugned orders of the respondents and has submitted that it is clear from the impugned orders that the appellant was guilty of non fixation of entertainment duty stamps, was negligent in performance of his duties, has been punished correctly and no injustice has been done with him. ,
6. I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the parties and have-also perused the record of this case carefully. Last pars. Of the impugned order, dated 27-1-1983 of respondent No. 1 clearly mentions that the non-fixation of entertainment duty stamps was not intentionally ignored as the tax indicated in the E.D. 4 Register was in accord to the correct calculation. Thus, there was an omission on the part of the appellant but it was not serious. No doubt appellant is at fault for the omission, but I consider that the punishment so awarded to him by respondent No. 1 is not in consonance with his fault and is harsh.
7. The upshot of the above analysis is that the punishment so awarded vide impugned order, dated 27-1-1983 of the respondent No. 1 "stoppage of one annual increment" is modified to that of "censure". The appeal is accepted to the above extent.
There will be no order as to costs.
M. I.