' The appellant Mr. Khalid Siddique E & T.O. Was awarded minor penalty of withholding of two increments by the order dated 7-5-1992 (Annexure `G') on the following charges:-- "While performing your duties as Assessing Authority in respect of Lahore Rating Area-II during your posting as Excise and Taxation Officer (Training Cell), Lahore you disposed of the objection petition filed by one Mian Babar Rashid, owner of Property Unit No,NWIIIR-111/1, Ravi Road, Lahore in a highly wayward and arbitrary manner without considering the reports of the Excise and Taxation Inspector/Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer which they purportedly had framed after necessary inquiry.
(ii) The unlawful and whimsical approach adopted by you in the matter of disposal of the aforesaid objection petition, caused unnecessary persecution to the assessee, Mian Babar Rashid who was also not afforded an opportunity of being heard and neither was issued any call notice but the objection filed by him was disposed of on the flimsy grounds of his non-appearance.
' He refuted the charges whereupon a regular enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved in his report dated 18-3-1992 (Annex. 'F'). The Authorised Officer, after hearing the appellant, awarded him the minor penalty. His departmental appeal failed and consequently he came up here.
2. The main grounds pressed in support of the appeal were that the appellant had given no opportunity of hearing to the complainant and that he ignored the reports of his subordinates on a wrong assumption that those were not based on facts.
3. The respondent-Department contested the appeal. It was claimed in the written objections that the enquiry conducted against the appellant under the E&D Rules did not suffer from any lacuna and further that there was no justification on the part of the appellant to have ignored the report of his subordinates showing the nature of the property or to have disposed of the objections of the complainant without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
4. I have perused the statement of the complainant dated 7-3-1992 recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
He admitted in so many words that he was called upon to attend the appellant's Office on 26-6- 1991; that he did attend the office on that date and that he did appear before the appellant. He tried to explain that the appellant had asked him to put down his signature on the back of the objection petition; that he had done so and further that he did not put down the date as he was assured by the appellant that he would get the relief. Later he affirmed in the cross-examination that neither the appellant nor any member of his staff, demanded of him any illicit gratification. It is worth noticing that the above features of the objectors' statement indicated by and large that he had attended the appellant's Office presumably in pursuance of a notice and that he had put down signatures on the back of the objection petition. There was no reservation made by him in the document that he had been forced to put down signatures against his consent. He appeared to be a literate person and when he went to attend the appellant's Office, he was supposed to have been steadfast. If there was any pressure exerted upon him, he should have refused to sign the document or taken steps to inform the superiors of the appellant in that behalf. One thing remains clear that he did not pay anything to the appellant, nor indeed, on his own showing, any one ever asked him to pay any thing by way of illicit gratification. The second point that stood established on the record was that no loss was caused to the State as the assessment made by the appellant had not been so far altered. To complain that the objector was not heard, appeared to be a mere technical fact as not only he appeared before the appellant but also signed a document apparently with his concent. Putting down signatures was not a trifle matter and had its own ramifications. It should have been known to him that the signature could be possibly used against him. His contention seems to be an after thought.
5. The second charge of ignoring reports of the subordinates equally seems to be not much inspiring. If the assessm ent made by the appellant was not in accord with the report of those subordinates, some measure should have been taken to get the appellant's order modified but the fact that it still holds the field was proof positive of its reasonableness. The higher authorities should have preferred the reports of the appellant's subordinates but they did not do so. Since there was no involvement of the appellant in misusing his authority for personal aggrandizement, the whole process looked to be an exercise in the routine.
6. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.