JUDGMENTMOHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).- Noor Elahi Khan, lecturer has filed this appeal U/S 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders dated 1.1.1987 and 21.4.1987, passed by the Respondents. He has impleaded Secrctary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, Director Education (C), Sargodha Division, Sargodha and Government of Punjab Lahore, as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was selected as English Teacher for Algeria by the Ministry of Education, Islamabad. After his selection the appellant applied for No Objection Certificate to his deputation, to the Government of Punjab, Education Department. The appellant was asked to join duly in Algeria before 13.9.1984. The application of the appellant for Nq Objection Certificate was under process when he was ordered telephonically by the Federal Government that he had to join his duty before 13.9.1984. The appellant was accordingly relieved of his duties by his immediate superior authority i.e. Principal, Government "Ambala Muslim College, Sargodha, on 5.6.1984. The appellant assuming that his deputation would be sanctioned by the Punjab Government, went abroad and stayed in Algeria for about 2 years from 6.9.1984 to 5.7.1984 and when the appellant reported back for duty, proceedings against him were initiated on the charge of wilful absence. The respondent No.2 after finding the appellant guilty of the charge, imposed upon him minor penalty of Censure. The Respondent No.1 took exception to it as in his opinion the appellant had been dealt with leniently. Accordingly he served a Show Cause Notice upon the appellant to show cause as to why penalty of Censure should not be enhanced. The appellant submitted his defence, the authority after hearing the appellant in person, imposed penalty of stoppage of increments for to conscutive years by his order dated 1.1.1987. He filed a review petition which was also rejected vide order dated 21.4.1987 hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record minutely with the assistance of the representative of the Department.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the departmental authorities preceded in most illegal manner by passing the impugned orders against the appellant.
Conversely the learned District Attorney has strongly opposed the plea so taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted on the basis of report/comments furnished by the respondents that the impugned orders were not only well reasoned but justified and may be maintained.
5. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parlies and find that the Respondents failed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant till he reported back for duty. During the course of arguments it came to light that the departmental authorities could not under lake disciplinary proceedings against the defaulters and as soon as they reported for duty, they started thinking of disciplinary proceedings. This is not only illegal but undesirable and gives rise to many corrupt practices, lt is the bounden duty of the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant the moment he absented himself from duly.
The facts of the case are otherwise. He was relieved of his duly by his immediate superior the Principal, Government Ambala Muslim College, Sargodha, in compliance of the orders of the Federal Government who directed the appellant to report to Algeria by 13.9.1984. I have gone through the record and find that although the appellant did not wait for the sanction of his leave and proceeded abroad in-anticipation of concurrence of the authority yet the respondents did not perform their duties in a justified manner. This in-action on the part of the respondents has paved the way in favour of the appellant. Keeping these facts in view. 1 am of the firm view that the penalty of Censure is sufficient to meet the ends of justice instead of Stoppage of increments for to years.
6. In the light of the above discussion, I set aside the impugned orders so passed by the Respondents and modify the penalty of Stoppage of increments for to consecutive years to Censure. The appeal succeeds in the manner discussed above. There is no order as to costs.Judgment signed. Copies be released to the parties.