1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This appeal arose from the compulsory retirement of the appellant Syed Ashfaq Hussain, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (BS-18); vide Chief Secretary's order dated 25th May, 1986. The penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the appellant, following the departmental proceedings taken out against him. As a first step he was placed under suspension by the then Secretary, Cooperation and Labour Department, Mr. M.Usmani by his order dated 9th February, 1978. This was followed by the service of charge-sheet and statement of allegations dated 25-3-1978 on the appellant. Mr. S.M.Mutahar, Director, Labour who was appointed Enquiry Officer to probe into the allegations made against the appellant, submitted his report on 10-6-1978, holding him guilty of the four charges out of seven charges contained in the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer recommended that any of the prescribed major penalties be awarded to him. Agreeing with the Enquiry Officer's recommendations, the Chief Secretary vide his order, dated 17th July, 1978, compulsorily retired the appellant from service.
2. Having failed to get the order of his compulsory retirement vacated at the departmental level, the appellant filed Appeal No, 63 of 1983 before this Tribunal, which was allowed on technical grounds vide the Tribunal's judgment, dated 12th February, 1985.
3. In pursuance of the said judgment the appellant was reinstated in service and was served with the requisite show-cause notice. He was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing. The appellant was ultimately awarded the same major penalty namely compulsory retirement from service by the impugned order referred to above. After due compliance of legal requirements, the appellant once again approached this Tribunal in the present appeal filed on 18-4-1989.
4. ' While opening his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant made a statement in Court that he would not press the appeal on merits, but instead he would pray for reduction of the penalty awarded to the appellant. The learned counsel for the other side was also heard.
5. ' In view of the above statement made on behalf of the appellant, it would be futile to enter into detailed discussion on the merits of the case. Instead we should confine ourselves to the question if the quantum of the punishment inflicted on the appellant, was in consonance with the circumstances of the case and, if not, to what extent its modification was called for. In this connection, the foremost argument made at the bar was that no monetary loss was caused either to the Government or to the Housing Society, on account of the appellant's alleged actions , and that if at all the appellant had committed any wrong, it was merely of technical nature for which extreme penalty of compulsory retirement from service was absolutely unjustified.
6. ' On his request, the learned Assistant Advocate-General was granted adjournment to ascertain from the concerned quarters as regards the financial loss, if any, resulting from the appellant's alleged acts of omission and commission. On the following date of hearing, although the departmental representative, Mr. Ahmad Saeed, Deputy Registrar, Karachi had brought the relevant record, he was unable to say if any loss was caused to the Society or the Government. We made such note on the order sheet dated 10-5-1990. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the enquiry report. It is clear from the report that the Enquiry Officer formulated, inter alia, the following two points of determination: "(i) whether accused officer by selling the land at the rate of Rs,9 per sq. Yd. As against the alleged market rate of Rs,50 per sq. Yard, deliberately caused financial loss to the extent of several lacs of rupees.
7. ' Whether the accused officer by putting an indemnifying clause in the sale agreement acted with ulterior motive against the interests of the Society."
8. ' On the above two points the Enquiry Officer's findings were: "Not proved" and "No" respectively.
9. Apart from these findings the Enguiry Officer's conclusion recorded in the end of his report reads as follows: ".In view of the facts mentioned above and discussed in detail, it has not been established that the accused officer received some monetary benefit for himself or acted due to corrupt motives.All the charges except the charges Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been established against the accused officer.."
10. The perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that charges detailed at S.No, (iv), (v) and (vi) relate to sale of the Society's land in question by private treaty and not by auction, the traditional mode of sale at lower rate of Rs,9 per sq. Yd. As against the market rate of Rs, 50 per sq. Yd. And to insertion of indemnifying clause in the sale agreement. As stated in the Enquiry Report, these charges have not been proved. From the above discussion we are left in no doubt that neither the Government nor the Society had suffered any monetary loss due to the appellant's alleged acts of omission and commission. The other charges which, according to the Enquiry Officer, have been established against the appellant are with regard to non-observance of certain rules and non-compliance of certain orders both verbal and written issued to the appellant. In this connection the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer was: "that he acted in haste and hurry in total disregard of directions issued to him verbally as well as in writing from time to time." In short the appellant was held to have acted hastily while processing the case of sale of the Society's land in question, so much so that he even omitted to observe the certain rules and ignored the verbal and written directions of the Department. Despite the appellant's such callous behaviour, the fact remained that no financial loss resulted from his actions. The appellant's own plea, as elaborated by his learned counsel in course of the arguments, was that throughout the transaction of the sale of the Society's land he acted in good faith and bona fide belief that the sale was in the interests of the society and its members. His plea is strengthened by the admitted position that no financial loss was caused to the Society by the transaction in question. In such a situation the appellant's failure to observe certain rules and to ignore certain departmental directions should not have been taken too far to deprive him of the source of his livelihood, thereby not only punishing him personally but also penalizing his entire family. Moreover the appellant's claim that his total service career of over 34 years was unblemished and rather meritorious has not been seriously contested. On top or all this the appellant has suffered the agony of protraction of this case and its attendant consequences for over a decade, right from the date he was suspended (9th February, 1978) until the date of announcement of this judgment.
11. ' After giving our due thought to all the above aspects of the case, we are of the view that the penalty of compulsory retirement inflicted on the appellant is too harsh. While maintaining the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer that any of the prescribed major penalties be awarded to the appellant, we direct that major penalty of reduction to lower post (BS-17) for a period of five years effective from the date of the impugned order (25th May, 1986), be substituted for the present major penalty of compulsory retirment. Subject to this modification in the penalty the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.