JUDGMENTJUSTICE (RTD.) MUNAWARALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN): - This case is more than I6 years old. It stemmed from the order dated 19.3.1973 passed by the appellant in the capacity of Assistant City Survey Officer, Karachi. The said order was purported to have revised the alignments of the plot No.LY- 72/1/5 fixed during the City Survey Operations conducted in 1940. As such the appellant was alleged to have contravened S.21 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act and thereby caused loss of about 4 lacs to the Government. Therefore he was charge-sheeted and Additional Commissioner, Karachi was appointed as enquiry officer to make enquiry into the said mis-hap. After completing the enquiry, he submitted his detailed report on 11.7.1975 holding that out of seven charges for charges were proved against the appellant. On the basis of the said report, the Secretary, Revenue Department found the appellant guilty and punished him by withholding his for annual increments with cumulative effect vide his order dated 31/7/1977.
2. The appellant challenged the order of his punishment before the Chief Secretary who by his order dated 28.8.1978 rejected his appeal. Thereafter the appellant filed service Appeal No.68 of 1978 before this Tribunal which was dismissed as time barred vide judgment dated 16-3-1980. The appellant went in appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Service Tribunal but somehow he withdrew the said appeal and pursued the matter before departmental authorities.
He made review application tothe Chief Secretary on 5-10-1981 for reconsideration of his decision.
Thereupon the Law Department was consulted who gave its opinion that before imposing penally upon the appellant, show-cause notice was to be given to him. Accordingly the case was remanded back to the Revenue Department which Department recalled its earlier order of punishment on 15.8.1985 and issued the requisite show-cause notice to the appellant. After receipt of his reply and giving him personal hearing, fresh order dated 24-7- 1986 was passed whereby, appellant's for annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect. He challenged the said order in departmental appeal before the Chief Secretary who rejected the said appeal on 20.1.1988.
Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal on 11.2.1988.
3. When the case was taken up for agruments, the appellant who was unrepresented submitted a statement in writing staling therein that he did not press the appeal on merits but instead requested for reduction in the penalty on the grounds mentioned in the statement.
4. In view of the appellant's statement we need not discuss the merits of the case. We would rather confine ourselves only to the desireability of reducing the penalty. We heard both the appellant and the learned AAG, with regard to appellant's request for reduction in the penalty. We also went through the grounds on which the appellant has based his request. There is no doubt that the appellant has suffered mentally as well as financially for ever one and half decades, and thereby has even otherwise been adequately punished. Further more, the order passed by the appellant which made him undergo the ordeal of long-drawn litigation has already been nullified and therefore the loss likely to occur to Govt, has been avoided. We are also in agreement with the appellant that if the impugned order is implemented in toto, the benefit of moveover when admissible to him under the rules would be postponed for for years. Besides all this, the rate of increment at the time of passing the impugned order had become greater than the rate when he was punished in the first instance.5. Taking above factors into consideration we are satisfied that reduction in the penalty would be justified. The learned AAG also did not seriously oppose the reduction. In the circumstances of the case withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect, in our opinion would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we direct that the impugned order dated 24.7.1986 will suitably be modified so as to read that instead of for increments only two increments would be stopped from the date of the impugned order and that too without cumulative effect.
Subject to modification of the penalty as above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal on this 9th day of October, 1989 at Karachi.