RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal is directed against the Order No. 2997- 3005/90 of Authority (Prime Minister) dated 9-7-1990 and Order No. 3468-76, dated 28-7-1990. The appellant was imposed major penalty of recovery of Rs.17,882 and also withholding of annual increment for a period of two years. By amending the first order the recovery of money was ordered to be made in instalment Rs.500 per month.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Tehsildar Hattian in. May, 1987 and performed his duties till 6-4-1988. Revenue Commissioner inspected the record of the office of Tehsil Hattian and found defalcation of money to the tune of Rs.38,677. It was also discovered that the appellant did not pay the telephone bills of Rs. 5,000 and price of the carpet amounting to the Rs.4,000. The appellant was charged-sheeted by the Secretary Revenue. The inquiry was held against him and on the recommendations of the authorised officer the appellant was awarded penalties mentioned above.
3. The respondents have submitted their written objections. The contents of appeal have been denied.
4. This appeal came for arguments on 31-1-1994. The appellant and respondents failed to appear on this date. Counsel for the parties were also absent. Since the case was ripe for arguments it was thought proper to decide the matter on merits instead of dismissing it for non-prosecution and non---appearance of the parties or their counsel.
5. The perusal of the record shows that the appellant filed a review petition before the Government on 3-9-1990. It is stated in para. 6 of the appeal that after waiting for statutory period of ninety days he has filed this appeal. The appellant could file this appeal before or on 3-9-1991. He has filed this appeal on 6-1-1991, which is clearly time-barred.
6. An application for amendment of the appeal was moved on behalf of appellant. The ground for amendment was that the whole proceedings during the inquiry were against Rules and Principle of Natural Justice and in view of the illegal procedure adopted in the inquiry the question of limitation did not arise. After hearing the parties this application was disallowed by the Tribunal on 18-11-1993 on the ground that the appellant failed to file any application for condonation of delay and if an amendment is allowed it will prejudice the defence of respondents. From this aspect of the matter it is proved that the appellant was himself conscious that his appeal is time-barred.
7. Appellant did not care to appear in support of his case before this Tribunal showing that he has lost interest in prosecution of his appeal. The inquiry was held under Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
The Authorized Officer recommended that appellant should be reduced in rank from Tehsildar to Naib-Tehsildar apart from the penalty of recovery of money. The Prime Minister was pleased to designate Ch. Muhammad Yousaf, Secretary, Education to provide personal hearing to the appellant. The said officer provided opportunity of being heard to the appellant; clarified the matter in shape of questions and answers by the appellant and recommended that in view of the nature of allegations the reduction in rank may prove to be harsh punishment. He suggested that in addition to the recovery of money two annual increments be withheld. The Prime Minister, by taking into consideration the relevant facts and the recommendations of the report of the designated Officer approved the proposal of Education Secretary.
8. The Prime Minister on the application of appellant approved amendment in the previous order and allowed recovery of amount in instalments of Rs. 500 per month. From the above-stated facts it appears that the authority has already taken lenient view of the matter and has awarded the penalty of stoppage of annual increments instead of reduction in rank from Tehsildar to Naib- Tehsildar.
9. The appellant has failed to set up a case for a favourable judgment. We, therefore, see no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs.