' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---While working as District Registrar, District Registration Office, Khanewal, the appellant, Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, was served with the charge-sheet under the signature of Secretary, Ministry of Interior (exact date not given) in October, 1992 for the following charges:-- "Islamabad, the October, 1992.
' CHARGE-SHEET ' You, Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, District Registrar, District Registration Office, Khanewal are charged as under:
(i) That in collaboration with you, M/s. Jamal Ahmed Nasir, Ghulam Shabir Zafar, Nasim Ahmed Jafari and Maqbool Hussain, Statistical Assistant, District Registration Office, Khanewal booked application forms in bulk against standing instructions and singed the identity cards unauthorisedly.
(ii) That you allowed to book application forms after 23-12-1991 against standing instructions and that with your collaboration the staff of D.R.O. Booked the forms of different families against one RG-4 receipt.
2. The above charges/irregularities constitute inefficiency/misconduct in terms of rule 2(4) of the Government Servants (E and D) Rules, 1973.
3. I, as Authorized Officer, am of the opinion that the aforesaid charges, if established would call for a major penalty specified in rule 4 of the rules ibid.
4. It has been decided to hold an enquiry against you under the rules ibid. Sh. Fida Muhammad is appointed as Enquiry Officer under rules 5(ii) read with rule 6 of the Rules to conduct enquiry into the aforesaid charges.
5. Now therefore you, Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, District Registrar, District Registration Office, Khanewal are required under sub-rule (2) of the Government Servants (E and D) Rules, 1973 to put in your written defence to Sh. Fida Muhammad, Enquiry Officer within 14 days of receipt of this charge-sheet and also state whether you desire to be heard in person and lead any evidence.
6. A statement of allegations explaining the charges is also enclosed.
(Sd.} JAMSHEED BURKI, Secretary/Authorized Officer.
' Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, District Registrar, ' District Registration Office, Khanewal."
' The charge-sheet was accompanied by a statement of allegations, containing full details, and they are as under:-- "Statement of allegations ' Mr. Maqbool Hassan, Assistant Director, Regional Registration Office, Lahore checked the working of District Registration Office, Khanewal and observed the following irregularities committed in the Office of Mr.Gulzar Ahmed, District Registrar:-
(i) Application forms were booked in bulk against the standing instructions.
(ii) According to the instructions, application forms for issuance of Identity Cards were to be booked up to 23-12-1991 to enable the eligible voters to have these cards in time, whereas the record of DRO shows that eight RG-4 books were issued on 25-12-1991 to the counter on the order of Kh. Jamal Ahmed Nasir, Statistical Assistant Counter Incharge which confirms that application forms were booked after the prescribed date.
(iii) PCR-I and PCR-II were not properly maintained.
(iv) After 19th December, 1991, most of the application forms were not sent to the Record Section for checking/referencing and identity cards were prepared and issued without observing the requisite formalities.
(v) Blank identity cards were not consumed according to the instructions and were given to the St.
Assistants/Regn. Clerks for writing in bulk.
(vi) The identity cards were signed by M/s. Kh. Jamal Ahmad Nasir, Ghulam Shabir Zafar, Maqbool Hussain and Ghulam Farid Qaisrani, St. Assistants unauthorisedly against the standing instructions (photostat copies of identity cards enclosed).
(vii) Application forms were not properly checked and already registered individuals were allotted fresh citizen code numbers.
S. No. Already allotted C.C. No.New allotted C.C. No.
1. Zubaida d/o Muhammad Rafi 328-58-29929s2 328-91-486750
2. Muhammad Hayat Shah s/o M. Hanif.328-59-331935 328-91-486737
3. Muhammad Aslam s/o Yamin Shahid328-63-169233 328-91-486165
4. S. Qamar Ali s/o Syed Hussain 328-59-203317 328-91-486769
5. Muhammad Rafiq s/o Jewan Ali 328-73-186229 328-91-473294
6. Zareen d/o Maddah Hussain 328-73-249356 328-91-473292
7. Zohra w/o Pehlwan 329-71-162421 329-91/69-90548
8. Shamim Bibi D/o Allah Yar 329-65-476386 329-91/66-90543 That with his collaboration, the staff of D.R.O. Booked the forms of different families against one RG- 4 receipt. Details of which is as under:- RG - RECEIPT NO NUMBER OF FORMS RG-1 OF DIFFERENT FAMILIES BOOKED AGAINST EACH RECEIPT
(1) (2)
1680/277 9 "/279 11 "/1680/284 10 "/288 12 "/291 8 "/293 9 "/296 11 "/303 11 "/304 11 "/305 14
2. The conduct displayed by Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, District Registrar, District Registration Office, Khanewal is highly objectionable and tantamount to "misconduct".
(Sd.} JAMSHEED BURKI, Secretary/Authorized Officer." {{TABLE}} ' The appellant submitted his reply on 18-11-1992, denying the charges. Regular inquiry into the charges was conducted, by the Inquiry Officer who held the appellant guilty of all the charges, except charge No,1. A show-cause notice dated 14-6-1993 was served on the appellant alongwith copy of the inquiry report. The appellant submitted detailed reply to the show-cause notice on 8- 7-1993 and thereafter the competent authority vide notification dated 10-31994 imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service under the provisions of Government Servants (E and D) Rules, 1973. The copy of the aforesaid notification was supplied to the appellant by the Directorate General of Registration vide O.M. Dated 30-3-1994 whereafter the appellant made departmental appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 20-4-1994 and after the expiry of 90 days waiting period he preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on 9-8-1994.
2. Mr. Mian Mahmood Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant argued the appeal at length contending that the allegations levelled against the appellant were the result of certain omissions and commissions committed by his subordinates due to pressure of work in connection with the Local Bodies Elections of December, 1991 which were later on rectified and compliance report was submitted to the headquarter. Therefore, the appellant was not liable for such an extreme punishment of dismissal from service, whereas the other staff members were let off by imposing on them the punishment of censure or reduction by one or two stages in time scales. He also argued that Mr. Maqbool Hussain, A.D. Was equally responsible but no action against him was taken. It was argued that there was no evidence against the appellant but the Inquiry Officer on suppositions held him guilty of the charges. He, as a last resort, submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service was extreme punishment and needs modification and on this he referred to a decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No,417(L)/93.
3. The respondents have filed objections and it has been stated that the appellant was charged for committing irregularities and regular inquiry was conducted and the appellant was found guilty and was rightly punished.
4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. The charge framed against the appellant is that he, in collaboration of his staff booked application forms in bulk and issued Identity Cards unauthorisedly during Local Bodies Elections of December, 1991. Regular inquiry was held into the charges and the defence taken by the appellant throughout was that all this happened due to rush of work, shortage of staff and political pressure. The Inquiry Officer relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses came to the conclusion that all the charges, except Charge No,1, were proved against the appellant. From the statements of allegations and the findings of the Inquiry Officer there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant had issued bogus Identity Cards or derived undue monetary gain and it is also not the case of the respondents that the appellant had any such motive and the contention of the appellant that it was due to shortage of staff and the circumstances prevailing at that time, appears to be reasonable. The record also bears out that the appellant was not the only person who was proceeded departmentally but other members of the staff connected with this charge were also proceeded but awarded lenient punishment of censure, and in some cases reduction of pay by one or two stages in the time scale, while the appellant has been awarded exemplary punishment of dismissal from service and as such there is clear discrimination in his case. Moreover, the appellant has been punished on the statements of the co-accused. The, appellant has put in about 22 years' service and it was stated at the Bar that there was nothing adverse against him prior to this incident, therefore, we are of the view that penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the appellant is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and does need consideration, as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt, the appellant being Incharge of the Registration Office has greater responsibility but the fact cannot be denied that he was not the only person who could be singled out and made responsible for the acts of omissions and commissions committed by his subordinate and the respondent department let off other staff members by awarding them lesser punishment while the appellant has been dismissed in spite of the fact that he had a long service of 22 years at his credit and discriminatory treatment was meted out to him.
In these circumstances, we accept the appeal to the extent that the order of dismissal from service is set aside and instead the penalty of reduction of pay by 5 stages in the time scale for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect is imposed on the appellant since impugned order. The appellant is reinstated in service and the intervening period is treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
5. No order as costs.
6. Parties to be informed.