ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).---Muhammad Anwar, Assistant Director (Colleges), Gujranwala Division was proceeded against departmentally on the following charges: "(i)He entered the Examination Centre forcibly and illegally took one question paper from the supervisory staff during the Intermediate Examination (Spring) 1988 at Centre No. 5, Gujrat on 19-4- 1988 (Morning Session).
(ii)On resistance from the supervisory staff, he threatened the Deputy Superintendent of direct consequences and compelled the supervisory staff to cooperate with him in appending a spare answer sheet with the answer book of Roll No. 3209 which was to be prepared outside the examination centre.
(iii)He had no authority to visit the said examination centre and that he possessed at that time a fake authority letter for inspection of that centre.
(iv)He attempted to help Roll No. 3209, Mr. Adnan s/o Shaukat Ali, who was appearing on 19-4-1988 as candidate at the said examination centre."
2. It appears that while these proceedings were in progress the Chief Minister's Inspection Team also conducted an enquiry into the incident and found that the only charge established against the appellant was that he had entered the examination hall illegally and without any authority. It was accordingly decided to withdraw the charge-sheet served on him earlier and to substitute it with a show-cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975 in respect of the charge which the CMIT had found to have been established.
Accordingly, the requisite notice was served on him which contained only the following charge: "He entered the Examination Hall illegally and without any authority during the Intermediate Examination (Spring) 1988 at Centre No. 5; Gujrat on 19-4-1988 (Morning Session)."
3. After completing the prescribed procedure the minor penalty of censure was imposed upon the appellant. The departmental appeal having been rejected he has now filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal.
4. The appellant has attempted to clarify his position by stating that it was on receipt of some complaints of serious malpractices that he had visited the examination centre to inform the invigilation staff posted there about these complaints where he also checked the question papers and initialled the envelopes. He denies having committed any breach of law but admits that it leas a bona fide mistake on his part which does not amount to dishonesty or mens rea. He has further contended that since the show-cause notice did not specifically accuse him of misconduct, the penalty imposed on this basis was illegal and ultra vires rule 3 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
5. It is true that show-cause notice does not state in so many words that the allegation levelled against the appellant amounted to misconduct but its wording leaves the reader in no doubt about its real import and that it is precisely covered by the definition of the term misconduct as given in rule 2(d) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The objection is overruled.
6. The allegation that the appellant entered the examination centre unauthorisedly is established on his own admission. Any clarification to the effect that he went there to inform the supervisory staff of the complaints against them is only a cock and bull story. Even if it was a seemingly innocuous visit what authority had he to check and sign the envelopes containing the question papers which were in the custody of the supervisory staff? The charge as framed has thus fully been established. The appellant has not denied it. No plea of previous good record of service can mitigate the seriousness and gravity of the misconduct. He should thank his stars that he has been let off with only a minor, penalty which is least painful. The appeal is dismissed.