The appellant Mr. Khalid Siddique; Excise and Taxation Officer (Training Cell), 40, Lawrence Road, Lahore, was awarded a minor penalty of withholding his one increment for a period of one year by the respondent Secretary's order dated 15-6-1991 (Annex. L). His review petition brought under rule 16 of the E & D Rules, 1975 before the Secretary himself was dismissed by his order dated 3rd September, 1991 (Annex. N). Aggrieved by there orders, he preferred the instant appeal before this Tribunal.
2. The charge pertained to reducing assessment of the property tax leviable on the premises known as Five Star Flour Mills, Haroonabad Road, Bahawalnagar from Rs.11,000 to Rs.6,000. This reduction was considered to be arbitrary, and not based upon any sound reasons. Alongwith the appellant, two other officials namely an A. E. T. O. And E. A. T. I. Were proceeded against. They were formally charge-sheeted. A regular inquiry was conducted against them by Mr. Wahid-uz-Zaman Khan, Director, Excise and Taxation, Multan and in his report dated 14th November, 1990, he 'found the charge proved against the appellant but absolved the other two officials. The Authorised Officer, namely the Director-General, Excise and Taxation considered the report of the Enquiry Officer, called upon the appellant to explain why a major penalty be not imposed upon him and ultimately recommended to award him reduction in pay scale. He agreed to exonerate the other two officials.
3. The Secretary/Authority after hearing the appellant found him guilty of the charge and imposed upon him the impugned penalty.
4. The appellant's plea primarily was that the covered area of the Mills was not 2,611 sq. Ft. As shown in the sanctioned plan and that one Kanal odd belonging to the third partner Dr. Insha Muhammad Khan, was excluded from the construction; that the total cost of construction amounting to Rs.1,50,000 included machinery worth Rs.68,550 and that, therefore, the same had to be excluded from consideration while making the assessment.
5. There are certain undisputed facts pertaining to assessment of the property in question. These are:--
(1) All the three owners of the Mills, namely, (i) Talat Saeed, (ii) Fazal Dad and (iii) Dr. Insha Muhammad Khan, had jointly applied for assessment of the property showing that it was complete in all respects.
(2) They tendered a Building plan sanctioned by the Municipal Committee disclosing that its covered area was 6,211 sq. Ft.
(3) At least till then, no reservation was made by them that the share in the site of the third partner (Dr. Insha Muhammad Khan) measuring a little more than one Kanal was not included in the plan, or that its plinth area was ratably reduced.
(4) The total cost of the Mills was stated by themselves to be Rs.1,50,000 without giving its break-up into Rs.81,450 as cost of the site and Rs.68,550 as that of the Mills.
(5) The initial assessm ent as made by the inspector and the A.E and T.O was Rs.4,800 whereas the appellant increased it to Rs.11,000 in the first, instance and later reduced it to Rs.6,000 without giving reasons.
6. It appears that the things took a turn when a notice for Rs.11,000 was-- issued at the instance of the appellant to the assessee who in their objections to the same raised the contention that the share pertaining to the third partner was left out of construction and that the total cost of the building included Rs.68,555 as cost of the machinery. They further claimed that the assessment of the Flour Mills, Bahawalnagar, a much bigger installation, was made at a much lesser rate and that a comparison between the two justified reduction of proposed assessment of Rs.11,000.
7. The Enquiry Officer, the Authorised Officer and of course the Authority all did not accept genuineness of the above points raised by the assessee in response to the notice. It really called for an explanation as to why the three owners who erstwhile themselves applied for assessment of Mills stating that it was complete in all respects in accordance with sanctioned plan, claimed subsequent to the notice that at least 1/3rd of the area belonging to one of the partners was not included in the covered area thereof. Equally, there was no reason to assume that there was departure from the sanctioned plan. Perhaps it needed specific sanction/approval for naming departure from such a plan. The assesses did not advance any cogent reason for making violation of 'the sanctioned plan leaving room to assume that a deliberate attempt was being made to accommodate the assesses' points that they had earlier failed to raise. In any event, the view adopted by the Departmental Authorities in the typical context did not appear to be perverse so as to call for interference by this Tribunal.
8. The appellant should have given reasons when he initially proposed Rs.11,000 as against the assessm ent of Rs.4,800 made by the Inspector and the A.E and T.O. The increase appeared to be whimsical. Since it involved difference of opinion between the appellant on one side, and his subordinates on the other, he should have advanced some cogent reasons to overrule them.
Further, the A.E. And T.O. Made some attempt to impress upon the appellant that the assessment of Rs.4,800 was appropriate but the appellant, took no notice thereof. Above all, it was a technical matter lying in the subjective satisfaction of the higher authorities whose view normally had to be accepted implicitly.
9. The appellant in his memo. Of appeal raised a number of other points but none of them seems to lend him support. He urged that there was no evidence upon which -the respondents based their opinion: that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet did not constitute misconduct; that he was a deputationist from the Industries sand Mineral Development Department to which this case should have been referred for passing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings; that he was not supplied a copy of the preliminary enquiry report; that the Authorised Officer had formulated his opinion in relation to his guilt before hearing him; that .Rule 16 of the E & D Rules, 1975 in so fir as it denied him a right of appeal, offended against of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 which primarily conferred a right of appeal and that as a result he was seriously prejudiced.
10. It will be noticed that most of these objections were procedural in nature and indeed insubstantial. It was a case in which no factual evidence need have been prejudiced. The assessm ent was initiated on an application of the assessee themselves wherein admittedly they did not make reference to certain questions of fact which could have earlier been easily incorporated in the aforesaid application. Their omission to plead those circumstances at the earliest, was taken note of and rightly rejected by the respondents. Further a presumption arose in favour of the sanctioned plan and if the assessee had made departure from it, they should not have omitted to mention it at the earliest. All subsequent attempts to cook up matters in that behalf did not merit consideration.
9. The argument that the appellant was a deputationist does not help him out. Rule 10, sub-rule (3) of the E & D Rules appears in point. It reads:-- "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) Government may, in respect of certain civil servants or categories of civil servants, authorise the borrowing authority to exercise all the powers of authority and authorised Officer under these rules."
It confers powers on the "Government" to authorise the borrowing authority to exercise all the powers of the Authority and the Authorised Officer under these rules. One of the effects of this provision was that a deputationist did not have any foolproof or absolute protection while in the hands of the borrowing Department. In respect, of certain cases, the Government was competent to authorise the borrowing Department to do all against a deputationist as could have been done by his own lending Department. In this case, one could assume that the respondent-Secretary being Government was well within no powers to save and authorised himself to act as Authority under the E & D Rules against the appellant. Had it been a penalty awarded by some officers other than the Secretary, the argument of the appellant would have force but the Secretary, being "Government" was possessed of necessary power to have enabled himself to act as Authority/Authorised Officer to relation to the borrowed officer. The argument of the appellant fails.
11. As for failure to furnish the appellant a copy of the preliminary enquiry --report, it suffices to observe that such an enquiry was not contemplated by the F & D Rules. It was not included among the document to be supplied to the accused under these rules. Moreover, comparatively a more serious omission of framing charge in 1988 SCM R 1676 "Muhammad Akram Khokher v, Administrative Officer, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore" was not sufficient to invalidate the penalty awarded. Therefore, omitting to supply him a copy of the preliminary report would have no adverse effect upon the proceedings.
12. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. .
Note.--The then Member II (Syed Aal-e-Ahmad) was transferred before writing this judgment. It is, therefore, signed only by the remaining Member of the Bench (Chairman) under Rule 24 of the Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1975. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.