Inayat Muhammad, Junior Clerk has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order, dated 22-4-1985 passed by Director, Excise and Taxation, Gujranwala Division (respondent No.2) vide which the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale was awarded to the appellant and his pay was fixed @ Rs.628 instead of Rs.772 p. m. And the impugned order, dated 9-1-1986 of the Director-General, vide which the departmental appeal was rejected. The appellant has impleaded the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala, the Director, Excise and Taxation, GujranwaIa and Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore as (respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3) respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the respondents be directed to pay the appellant his full pay with consequential benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted as follows:- "That while posted as Motor Taxation Clerk, Gujranwala, you committed the following serious irregularities: -
(i) That in the case of 9 vehicles owned by Messrs Durrani Bottlers Gujranwala, you received a sum of Rs.1,964 x 9 = 17,676 in cash and deposited Rs.864 x 9 = 7,776 (Token Tax) into Government Treasury. The balance of Rs.9,900 was not deposited into the Government Exchequer but the receipt of this amount was indicated in the respective token in the following manners: --Rs.864 plus 1,000 plus 100 and signed the tokens by yourself for and on behalf of Motor Registration Authority, Gujranwala on 7-7-1982 without any authority. You have thus embezzled a sum of Rs.9,900.
(ii) That after detection of irregularities of serious nature in your working, you were transferred from Motor Taxation Branch to Kamoke. You were supposed to hand over the charge of ownership, the details of which annexed in the enclosed statement of allegations, were not handed over to him.
By reason of the above you appear to be corrupt:- Within the meaning of Rule 3(c) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, which may involve imposition of one or more of the penalities prescribed by Rule 4 of the said Rules."
The appellant pleaded not guilty. Subsequently in the enquiry report, dated 28-8-1984, the enquiry officer proved the charge (allegation) of embezzlement of Rs.9,900 (full charge) and proved the charge of not handing over charge of papers/files to his successor, accordingly the Director Excise inflicted the penalty by the reduction of pay by eight stages. Aggrieved against this order the appellant filed departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Director-General, Excise, vide order, dated 9-1-1986. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order has not specified the period during which it has to operate. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the charges of embezzlement and misappropriation are misconceived and only the case is of a tax stated that three enquiries were heard against the appellant who was found guilty in the 3rd enquiry. The learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the statements of prosecution witnesses were not recorded in the presence of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that Mr. Saleem was interested witness. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the punishment was harsh.
5. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the impugned penalty was inflicted for the reduction of pay by 8 stages which was accordingly implemented. As such no confusion regarding the period of embezzlement because the pay of the appellant having been reduced was to remain as such except the increase of the annual increments or revision of scale.
The learned D.D.A. Added that the evidence was recorded in the presence of the appellant by Enquiry Officer. The authority in the 2nd enquiry directed that the statement of Mr. Saleem to be recorded as prosecution witness because he was a material witness. The learned D.D.A. Further stated that the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself and he had participated in the proceedings and availed his opportunity, including the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Deputy District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the punishment was not harsh.
6. I have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned D.D.A. I have also consulted the relevant record including the written objections of the respondents. In the instant case the proceedings of enquiry and the orders of the authority as well the appellant authority, disclose that there was full justification for conducting 3rd enquiry. The appellant availed full opportunity to defend himself including the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the examination of defence witnesses. The evidence was recorded in the presence of the appellant otherwise how could his cross-examination occur in the record. His own statement and signatures appears in the record. The appellant availed his remedy of the departmental appeal and the punishment is inclined towards the lenient side compared to gravity of the proved charge of embezzlement of Rs.9,900 against the appellant beside not handing over complete charge to his successor.
7. Hence there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
No orders for the costs.
M.Y.H Appeal dismissed