ORDER Sad Saood Jan (Chairman).--The appellant was an Officiating Head Constable holding the substantive appointment of a Foot Constable. In January 1973 he was posted in Police Station Gowalmandi. There were complaints against him that he was mixed up with anti-social elements in the area. On the basis of these domplaints the Senior Superintendent of Police on 25-1-1973 issued a show-cause notice to him why he should not be reverted to his substantive rank of Constable (Selection Grade) He submitted his explanation and he was also heard in person by the Senior Superintendent of Police who op 15-2-1973 passed the order of his reversion to his substantive rank. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed. He then preferred a revision petition before the Inspector General of Police which too was dismissed. He has now come to this Tribunal.
2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he was not an officiating Head Constable and was holding that appointment in a substantive capacity. His contention is without any force for he has not placed on record any copy of the order by which he was confirmed as Head Constable. In fact in his revision petition before the Inspector General of Police he did not take up this position. ;
3. It is well settled now that an officiating civil servant can be reverted at any time to his substantive appointment and such a reversion does not amount to reduction in r^nk. Thus we do not think that by the impugned order the appellant has ruffered from violation of his terms and conditions of service.
This appeal is therefore without any force and is hereby dismissed in limine. [Administrative Tribunal Punjab] Present : Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, Members ABDUL HAMID * versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB , decided on 21st November 1974. West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960-- ------ R. 2(5)--Misconduct --Financial Joss to Government--Not an essential ingredient for a charge of misconduct--Accused charged of deliberate loss of official record (Kanungo found responsible for loss of mutation and other record)--Contention that loss of such documents did not involve any financial loss and as such accused could not be held guilty of mis-conduct, in circumstances, rejected, [p. 118]4 Qazi Zahid Hussain for Appellant. Order Saad Saood Jan (Chairman) --The appellant was a Kanungo and was last posted at Mahraj Garh in tehsil Chiniot. He was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry. He has filed this appeal to challenge his dimissal. One Lt. Col. Mirza Muhammad Shafi through his attorney Rana Raft&r Ahmad Khan made an oral sale of his land measuring about 244 kanals in favour of five persons for a sum of Rs. 50,000. A mutation in respect of this sale was sanctioned on 18-4-1966. Sometimes in September 1966 the relevant mutation as well as its counterfoil were found missing. For this loss the appellant, who was the Kanungo of the area, and the local Patwari were charge-sheeted. Separate inquiries were held against them and as a result the Patwari was exhonerated but the appellant was dismissed from service.
2. The case of the Patwari was that on 26-9-1966 he was asked by the appellant to produce his entire record for inspection at the latter's house. Accordingly when he went there the appellant told him that he was not feeling well and that he should have the record with him and collect it on the following day.
Thus the record remained with the appellant for a day. The Patwari further alleged that he obtained the record from the appellant on 27-9-1966 and on checking up he found that the relevant mutation as well as the relevant page from his roznamcha waqiati were missing. He made a report of this loss to the appellant on 28-9-1966.
3. The appellant of course denied that he had ever called the Patwari at his house with the record and that he had kept the record, with him for one day. On the other hand his defence was that he was not present in his village on the relevant day.
4. An inquiry against the appellant was conducted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chiniot and he preferred to accept the version given by the Patwari. The Collector was, ho vever, of the opinion that both the appellant and the Patwari were mixed up in the affair. The Commissioner, however, chose to agree with findings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and absolved the Patwari of the charge.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and find no reasons to disagree with the view taken by the Commissioner. It may be mentioned that the vendees also laid the blame for the loss of the mutation on the appellant entirely. It is also to be noticed that the appellant did not take any action on the report of the Patwari about the loss of the documents for 5 days. His inaction for so many days is inconsistent with his plea of innocence. Apart from that it was the Patwari who discovered the loss of the document from his *basta\ 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the loss of the documents did not involve any financial loss to the Government and therefore! the appellant could not be held gulity of misconduct. We do not think sojil Financial loss to Government is not an essential ingredient in a charge ofl misconduct.
7. We consider that on the evidence recorded by Inquiry Officer the appellant was rightly found guilty of the charges. We find no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed in limine.