' AKHTAR HASSAN (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant Qari Shaukat Ali, Inspector, Excise and Taxation was charged as under:- "You worked out the tax in respect of Property Unit No, BVII-25-9B Rating Area Nankana Sahib at the rate of 20% instead of 25% as the Annual Rental Value of the unit was Rs, .3.1,860 (exceeding Rs,2,00,000) and accordingly fax for the year 1985-86 was recovered Rs, 5,616 instead of Rs, 7,965 causing loss to Government exchequer."
2. He refuted the Charge whereupon an Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold an inquiry and as a result thereof he was absolved of the main charge but was held guilty of having not himself prepared the demand register. The Authorised Officer agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer awarded him the minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments by the order, dated 28-3- 1994 (Annexure 'H' at page 35). His departmental appeal failed and hence the instant appeal.
3. The main ground taken up in support the appeal was that ultimately the Appellate Authority made assessm ent of the tax rather less than the amount assessed by the appellant and that there was no mistake about it. Further, it was claimed that in the absence of a charge of corruption, mis- calculation of assessm ent could not be made subject-Tatter of any disciplinary action. Lastly, it was urged that the appellant could not have been punished for a charge which was not included in the charge-sheet.
4. The appeal was opposed stating that the appellant was negligent in having not prepared the demand register in his own hand and that he was rightly punished.
5. It is apparent from the record that the appellant was punished for a count which was not included in the charge-sheet. Rather, he was absolved of the count included in the charge-sheet and ordinarily the result would have been his total exoneration. The Inquiry Officer however side- tracked the issue and found the appellant guilty of a different count which had not been a subject- matter of the Inquiry. Evidently, he could not have been punished for it.
6. If at all there was any deficiency or discrepancy in assessment of the amount of tax, it stood rectified in appeal wherein the amount assessed by the appellant was further reduced. Manifestly no less to the exchequer was caused. Besides, bona fide mistakes without accusation of corruption were always protected. It might be something personal with the officer who has to exercise his own mind. 1988 SCM R 691 was an authority relied upon by the counsel in this behalf. The argument was really substantial because there was no charge of mala fides against the appellant. He sought to recover a certain amount which admittedly was more than the amount ultimately held recoverable from the assessee in appeal.
7. For all these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The two increments stopped in the impugned order shall be restored to the appellant.