1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The respondent was serving as a Lecturer in the Government Degree College, Sohawa. There were allegations against him that he had been insubordinate to the higher authorities. He was suspended and a charge-sheet was served upon him wherein he was alleged to be guilty of misconduct. The charge-sheet was accompanied by a statement of allegations.
2. Neither in the charge-sheet nor in the statement of allegations specific instances of insubordination were cited. 'However that may be, the Authorized Officer considered the explanation to be unsatisfactory and imposed upon him the penalty of censure. The respondent filed a departmental appeal which was rejected. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appeal was accepted and inter alia the order imposing penalty upon the respondent was set aside. From the judgment of the learned Tribunal the Education Department seeks leave to appeal.
2. As already stated, neither the charge-sheet nor the statement of allegations contained particulars on which the allegation of insubordination was based. Thus, both these documents were entirely vague. However, it appears that the Authorized Officer had the letter of the Principal of the respondent's college before him. This letter reads as follows: "By refusing to obey the orders of the undersigned Mr. Abbas Anwar has been creating bad examples for others, ' When asked to mention prices on the Stock Register of items purchased by him. He refused to do it. The Bursur Mr. Rashid was asked to mention prices.
3. ' Again he was made member of the Admission Committee vide orders dated 25-7-1988, he refused to sign it. When called to my office in the presence of other members of staff, he flatly refused."
4. ' In his explanation the respondent denied that he had in any manner defied the Principal. As regards the allegation that he had declined to mention the 'prices of the items purchased by him in the stock register he stated: "The articles of purchase were duly taken down on the stock register, but the worthy Principal ordered for the preparation of a new stock register, the orders were carried out. Not satisfied with this, the Principal yet gave me another printed register and ordered for the said items to be taken on that. His orders were complied with, but he objected to the respective prices of the items having not been entered in the stock register. But as there was no column specified for the prices. The worthy Principal waived the objection and accepted the entries made in the stock register. This had put the matter to an end and that could be no ground for an action after the passage of over five months."
5. ' With regard to the allegation that he had refused to sign the order whereby he was appointed a member of the Admission Committee, he stated: "As I had performed duties in the capacity of Chairman, Admission Committee as well as Secretary, Purchase Committee during the preceding year 1987. I requested the Principal to please fulfil your promise and do justice in the matter. Although my request was considered to the fact remains that I had never tender refusal to his order and thus there had been no element of misconduct (insubordination) as could be liable for a disciplinary action on his part."
6. It is to be noticed that the Authorized Officer neither examined the Principal in the presence of the respondent nor any attempt to elicit the Principal's comments on the reply submitted by the respondent. In the circumstances, the finding of the Authorized Officer that the charge of insubordination had been established could hardly be supported. The learned Tribunal therefore did not err in accepting the appeal of the respondent. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.