SARDAR ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Abdul Rashid, ex-Junior Clerk has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in which he was impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, as well as Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, dated 4-10-1983 as well as of learned Commissioner, Multan, dated 26-5-1985, be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Junior Clerk was suspended on 28- 12-1983 and charge sheeted for keeping the bail bonds with him and failing to send the same to the Court concerned as required under the order of the High Court, Multan Bench. The statement of allegations contained three charges. Mr. Afsar Sajad, was appointed as Enquiry Officer who vide his report, dated 28-6-1984, held that charges were proved against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The Authorised Officer/ADC(G), Multan issued a show-cause notice for major penalty under section 4(i.e) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. He was given copy of the inquiry report. The Authorised Officer reported on 15-8-1984, that after going through the entire record, the charges against him were proved and recommended major penalty under section 4(i.e) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 after issuing him a final show-cause notice. The Deputy Commissioner heard him in person and dismissed him from service. The appellant went in appeal before the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, who upheld the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Multan. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy 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 as far as charge No. 1 was concerned, the appellant was posted on 7-3-1983, as Ahlmad. At the time of handing over the charge, the former Ahlmad did not hand over these bail bonds to the appellant. When the learned Assistant Commissioner directed the appellant on 14-11-1983, to send the bail bonds to the Courts concerned, the appellant sent for the former Ahlmad during whose tenure the bail bonds were attested. The said Ahlmad searched out the bail bonds and handed over the same to the appellant on 19-11-1983. The appellant immediately sent those bail bonds to the Courts concerned on 19-11-1983. With regard to charge No-2, it has been submitted that charge was unfounded as no evidence has been produced to show that the discharge report relating to Khalid Hussain accused was received by the appellant on 21-6-1983. It has been argued that this report had been received by the Naib Court of the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Multan. As the accused was on bail and had to appear in the Court on 14-11-1983, the Naib Court handed over the said report of discharge to the appellant on 14-11-1983, which the appellant placed it on file and produced the same before the Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Multan. Learned counsel submitted that there was no motive for the appellant not to submit the said report to the Assistant Commissioner if he had received the same on 21-6-1983. The accused had been appearing before the Assistant Commissioner at various dates during the period from 21-6-1983 to 14-11-1983', in the presence of P.S.I. And the learned Assistant Commissioner had been passing the necessary orders after examining the file. If the appellant had received the discharge report on 21-6-1983, he would have certainly placed it on the file because such reports cannot be kept as stray papers. Neither the P.S.I.
Nor the Naib Court had been examined by the Enquiry Officer to prove that the said report has been handed over to the appellant by either of them. With regard to charge No.3, it has been submitted that appellant was given show-cause notice to submits his reply within 3 days, therefore, if the appellant had failed to give reply, he could not be penalized for the same. In the end it has been argued that the respondents had not taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had only 4 years service at his credit and it was his first appointment as Ahlmad and, therefore, all what had happened due to inexperience and performing of dual duties as Ahlmad as well as Reader of Assistant Commissioner, Saddar, Multan, and no ulterior motives are involved in the same.
6. On the other learned Deputy District Attorney has adopted the parawise comments submitted by the respondents in extenso and has submitted that the impugned orders are justified and may be maintained.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant has been held guilty oft negligence without any ulterior motives. The plea of the appellant in this case is very simple that he was over burdened with his work, as he was holding additional charge of Reader at the same time and the lapse on his part, if any, did not result into any serious consequence of legal or financial aspect. He has highlighted the fact that the Enquiry Officer failed to examine the Naib Court as well as P.S.I. To prove that the allegations made in charge No.2 regarding handing over the papers to the appellant stood proved, as according to him in the presence of evidence to the contrary, his plea that said report was handed over to Naib Court on 14-11-1983, should have been accepted. It has been further submitted on his behalf that when he took over the charge a full bundle of papers was handed over to him in a haphazard manner and it was physically impossible for him to sort out the same without the help of previous Ahlmad. He has pleaded that when he found himself in difficulty in this respect, he called the earlier Ahlmad and with his help, was in a position to sort out the papers in regular manner and then he promptly despatched the same.
8. Keeping in view the defence plea of the appellant we are of the considered opinion that although the charge of negligence stands proved against the appellant yet punishment awarded t0 him by the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as learned Commissioner, is harsh and not in consonance with the essence of negligence so proved against him.
The appellant being a new hand had struggled hard to cope with the volume of work so thrusted upon him, who failed to attend the same due to rush of work as well as additional charge which he was holding at that relevant time. To throw out a person from service without giving him an adequate chance to correct himself when there is no charge of ulterior motive against him, would not be of pragmatic probe to the problems with which petty civil servants are faced in day-to-day working on their jobs. In view of the above consideration and particularly keeping in view that all what happened, did not happen due to any financial consideration or dishonest intention, we vary the punishment of dismissal to that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and censure. This will give a chance to the appellant to show better performance in future and at the same time to work hard to remove the stigma from his career and earn better reports.
9. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and re-instate the appellant in service and vary the punishment of dismissal to that of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect and censure. However, the period for which the appellant remained out of service, will be considered as leave of the kind due. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.
M.Y.H/98/Lb./S