1. MUHAMMAD MEHMOOD ASLAM PIRZADA CHAIRMAN.- Muhammad Mumtaz has filed this appeal under Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 against the impugned orders dated 28.12.1986 and 3.5.1987 passed by the respondents. He has impleaded the Dy. Commissioner/Collector Sargodha and the Commissioner, Sargodha Division as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was ordered to be proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1975 by respondent No.1 because while posted as Kanunge Consolidation Halqa Mauza Pindi Jauri he failed to check the Girdawari work of Kharif Harvest. The respondent No.1 (authority) appointed the Assistant Commissioner as authorized officer who in turn appointed the Resident Magistrate as enquiry officer. The appellant was charge-sheeted who submitted his written reply in which he did not plead guilty to the charge.
3. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry proceedings opined that the charge was not proved against the appellant. However the authorized officer dis-agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice of personal hearing and after hearing the appellant in person observed that the appellant was supposed to check the girdawari work of Patwari which he failed to do. The authorized officer sent his report dt 24.8.1988 holding the appellant guilty of inefficiency and recommended major penalty. The authority after observing the legal formalities vide his impugned order dated 28.12.1988 imposed the, minor penalty of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect. The appellant filed a departmental appeal before respondent No.2 who vide his impugned order dated 3.5.1987 dismissed the same, hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and minutely perused the record with the assistance of the representative of the department.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was illegally awarded the penalty of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect. On the other hand, learned D.A. Seriously opposed the appeal and argued that the impugned orders passed by the respondents in the light of comments/report be allowed to stand.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and find that according to the Land Records Manual it is the responsibility of the field Kanungo to report certain matters to the Tehsildar where the finds the work of Patwaris not upto the mark. On a careful perusal of the facts of this case we are of the considered view that appellant was responsible for checking the work of Patwaris and therefore uphold that the appellant was guilty of the charge levelled against him.
7. In the light of above discussions we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents with the exception that the penalty awarded shall be treated as without cumulative effect. Consequently the instant appeal stands dismissed in the above terms with no order as to costs.
8. Copies of signed judgement be released to the parties according to the procedure of the Tribunal.