' KR. ABDUL JALIL (MEMBER).--Appellant, Faqir Sain, Meter Mechanic, M & T Sub-Division, Wapda, Sialkot was removed from service by the respondents vide order dated 22-2-1983. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal to the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA but this was rejected on 6-2-1984. He has preferred this appeal to the Tribunal on 13-2-1984 with the prayer that the impugned order may be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. We have heard counsel for both the parties. Briefly speaking the facts of the case are that a 3- phase meter was tested by the appellant for correctness of its speed on the basis of external links on 28-2-1979 and thereafter it was handed over to Muhammad Ashraf, Helper for providing internal links as well as for its sealing. Both of them carried out their assigned duties in respect of this meter under the direct supervision of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor, Test Inspector. After this testing and re- calibration this meter was installed in the premises of Mehli Rice Mills, Daska. After about a month and a half the premises of the said Mills were checked by the Superintending Engineer, Sialkot alongwith other Officers of WAPDA who found that the meter was not recording the consumption of electricity correctly. Accordingly, it was brought by S.D.O. Daska for testing and re-calibration in M & T Sub-Division, Sialkot. On checking, it was found that. One internal link was broken and, therefore, the speed of the meter was slow by 33%. Even after providing the three links the meter itself was found to be slow by 20% and thus the meter had been running slow by 53% causing revenue loss to WAPDA. As a result, disciplinary action was taken against Abdul Ghafoor, Test Inspector, the appellant and Muhammad Ashraf, Helper and all of them were removed from service.
3. The penalty of removal from service imposed upon the appellant appears to be harsh in view of the following mitigating circumstances:
(a) It has been conceded by. The learned counsel, for the respondents that the responsibility for providing internal links to this meter and its sealing was that of Muhammad Ashraf, Helper and, therefore, the appellant has been incorrectly held guilty of the charge of tampering with one of the three internal links which resulted in the slow running of the meter by 33%.
(b) The appeal of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor, Test Inspector (Appeal No, 182(L)/83) was decided by another Bench of this Tribunal on 25-8-1986 and his appeal was partly accepted with the direction that instead of removal from service, the appellant's salary in the Grade of Inspector shall be reduced to the minimum stage of his pay scale from the date the order of removal was passed. The main reason for taking a lenient view in the said case was that the appellant had frankly admitted that he did not test the meter and left it to his subordinates believing that they were carrying out the test properly.
(c) The S.D.O. M & T Sub-Division, Gujranwala who conducted an enquiry into this case has mentioned three reasons for the slow speed of this meter by 20% in his report dated 28-11-1982. The relevant portion of his aforementioned report is reproduced below: "(i) The chances for slowness of meter arisen in three different ways:
(a) The meter was slowed through magnet by Muhammad Ashraf, Helper while providing links.
(b) It got slow during transportation.
(c) It was slowed down intentionally by Faqir Sain while testing on bench.
There is no instrument to pin point the exact possibility out of the above I three to reach the decision about the involvement of Mr. Faqir Sain except to doubt on him."
4. Keeping in view the above mitigating circumstances, we are of the view that the penalty of removal from service is rather harsh. We, therefore, partly accept the appeal and direct that instead of removal from service the appellant's salary in the grade of Meter Mechanic shall be reduced to the minimum stage of the pay scale from the date the order of removal was passed.
The period during which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The appellant is reinstated in service. There will be no order as to costs.