S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Syed Abid Saeed Kirmani, Deputy Director of Industries, Headquarters Office Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development Department, Lahore has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Industries Department, Lahore, and the Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary. Government of the Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 30-4-1985 and 17-6-1.985, be set aside, by which he was awarded minor penalty of withholding of promotion.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as Joint Director (Research), the then Deputy Director (Textile), Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, was served with a charge-sheet, in which various charges were levelled against him. This was accompanied with the statement of allegations. The appellant submitted detailed explanation to the said charge-sheet on 30-1-1982. His aforesaid explanation was considered unsatisfactory and Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry was held against the appellant as well as other officers involved in the said case. The appellant submitted detailed defence. However, after receiving the finding of the Enquiry Officer, a show-cause notice was issued in his name to which he also filed detailed reply on 23-8-1982, in which he refuted the charges so levelled against him. However, by order dated 30-4-1985, the appellant awarded minor penalty of withholding of his promotion for two years. The appellant filed review petition to the same authority which was rejected. 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 or the appellant without going into the merits of the case, has submitted that actually the period for which the appellant's promotion was withheld had already expired on 30-3- 1983, because the promotion had become due to the appellant w.e.f. 1-4-1981. It was argued that impugned order dated 30-4-1985, was virtually infructuous and unnecessary.
6. With regard to the merits of the case learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Mr. Sultan Hameed, Enquiry Officer while holding the appellant responsible for the loss, had further elucidated that the same was neither for ulterior motives nor it could be considered misappropriation of funds in the absence of any conclusive evidence to the contrary. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the crux of the Inquiry Report was that the appellant's role was limited to the procedural aspect of the case. He has further highlighted that the Enquiry Officer had conceded that the appellant was looking after the work of four Deputy Directors at the time this case was processed- and in view of this finding he was of the view that the appellant be awarded only a minor penalty. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Enquiry Officer, once it was found by him, that neither there was any misappropriation of fund.: and whatever had occurred it was due to non-observance of certain procedures and that too when the appellant was so overworked as he was looking after the charges of four Deputy Directors, at one time, he was not justified to make recommendations for imposing of minor penalty. While concluding his arguments he has highlighted the earlier career of the appellant by submitting that entire service record of the appellant is unblemished rather laudible as all the A . C . Rs. Have declared him as 'A' and 'A-I'. He has also pointed out that appellant during his 21 years service was never a recipient of any punishment for act of omission or commission on his part. It has been further argued in the larger interest of justice, this Tribunal would take into notice that the inquiry was prolonged to the effect that it took four years for its completion and in between the inquiry, the learned Chief Secretary as well as worthy Governor passed orders for completing the inquiry by 28-2-1982. By bringing this fact to the notice of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this very fact, that the appellant has gone under mental agony for full long four years and has also suffered his chance of promotion due to this protracted inquiry, the punishment'; so awarded to him, be set aside both as unjustified as well as on moral grounds.
Learned counsel for the appellant has elaborated this point by relying on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1977 SC 24' wherein it was held that single lapse of a civil servant, be not taken into consideration and the same be ignored as keeping was in view of his earlier record as it does not amount to inefficiency within the meanings of Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department which has simply indicated that the earlier record or having charge of so many posts would not be a reason to absolve the appellant from his responsibilities for observing correct procedure.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and first of all would advert to the legal aspect of the case, which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in as much as that once the appellant had already suffered in promotion for full two years, therefore, the penalty so awarded to him becomes infructuous. What we find is that the appellant was due for promotion on 1-4-1981, while the same was withheld on account of process of inquiry, which later on culminated into regular inquiry in the year 1982. As this inquiry remained continued for full four years, the appellant already suffered two chances of promotion and thus, in no manner, should suffer more than the penalty what he has been now imposed upon him.
9. Besides this legal point so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, which cannot be ignored as being weighty in nature both on point of law as well as point of equity, we further find that the appellant has been absolved of any misappropriation of funds as well as no ulterior motives has been attributed to him and the Enquiry Officer, in all fairness, has conceded that what had occurred was due to non-observation of certain procedure on the part of the appellant but at the same time had further conceded that the appellant was overworked as he was holding charge of four posts of Deputy Directors at one time. We also cannot remain oblivious of the service record of the appellant, which we summoned, and find that it was absolutely unblemished. With these attending circumstances, the case of the appellant falls within four corners of the verdict of their lordship of the Supreme Court of Pakistan so cited above by the learned counsel for the appellant, wherein their lordships were gracious to hold that the single lapse on the part of a civil servant, cannot be considered an act of inefficiency under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. At the most what can be gathered from the inquiry report, would be that the appellant, for the financial loss occurred in this case, was fully considered responsible for not looking into the proper procedure so laid down in this behalf. This would positively mean that this was a single lapse which he committed during the entire course of his service and that too not of serious nature as already mentioned above that no ulterior motives or financial loss was committed on his part. It will be useful to reproduce relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:- "Although there may be some rare cases of gross negligence which if found to be established would leave one in no manner of doubt as to the inefficiency of the official concerned yet a single slip or lapse, if any on the part of a Government servant with a consistently good record would not invariably justify such an inference. Inefficiency has not been defined as a term of art and in its ordinary dictionary meaning would connote mobility or want of adequate fitness to attend to one's work. Inefficiency has been explained in Oxford English Dictionary (Vo1.I) as 'incapable of producing the desired effect'."
10. In view Of the above analysis of the entire case of the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has already suffered this penalty, which has now been imposed upon him, as well as this would be a single lapse on his part during his entire career of 21 years, which is liable to be ignored. Resultantly we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 30-4- 1985 and 17-6-1985. However, I there will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.
A.E./63/Sr.S.