' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---The appellant Mr. Zahoor Hussain was appointed as L.D.C. In C.M.T.
And S.D., Golra in 1987. After qualifying Data Entry Operating, Wordstar and Wordperfect Courses, he was redesignated as K.P.V.O. (B-9) in the same Organisation, in 1992.
2. The appellant was detailed on Computer-Operating Course at A.S.C. Directorate GHQ, Rawalpindi from 27-8-1994 to 20-10-1994, and he reported to GHQ accordingly.
3. While during the regular classes, according to him, he was recalled by the Depot to work there from 13th to 15th September, 1994 for preparing a brief for the Director-General, Ordnance Services who was scheduled to visit the Depot.
4. After competing the required work assigned to him, the appellant reported back to the GHQ for resuming his aforementioned course. On his return to GHQ, he found that he had missed some very important, valuable and Key-position lecturers because of his absence from 13th to 15th September, 1994 -the period he worked in Depot, on his calling back by the authorities. As a result he found himself helpless to make up the deficiency. He became mentally upset and under that stress and strain, could not continue the course. However, he rejoined the course on 25-9-1994, but on 6-10-1994, his name was struck off the roll on 5-10-1994. The appellant, according to him, explained the whole episode to his officer i,e, Data Processing Officer, who assured him sympathetic treatment.
5. The appellant was issued explanation letter on 18-10-1994, whereby he was asked to explain as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He submitted his reply to the explanation letter on 24-10-1994. Thereafter, according to him, without issuing any charge-sheet to the appellant, Court of enquiry was held at the back, during which neither witnesses were examined in his presence nor was he given an opportunity to cross-examine them as required under the law.
6. He was issued show-cause notice on 23-11-1994, to which he submitted reply on 4-12-1994 and was awarded major penalty of reduction in rank from KPVO (B-9) to L.D.C. (B-5) on 20-3-1995.
Fresh security clearance of the appellant was obtained. He was further directed to give an undertaking that in case of any disciplinary violation in future, he might be removed from service.
7. The appellant submitted departmental appeal against his major punishment on 18-4-1995 to the Director-General, Ordnance Services, GHQ, Rawalpindi, vide Postal Certificate dated 18-4-1995, appeal has not been decided as yet.
8. But surprisingly, Assistant Commandant issued 'the appellant explanation letter dated 23-5- 1995; as to why he had submitted his departmental appeal against reversion direct to DGOS and after getting its reply dated 31-5-1995 from the appellant, the Commandant, imposed on him yet another penalty of stoppage of increment by order dated 17-6-1995.
9. The appellant also preferred a departmental appeal on 13-7-1995 to the D.G.O.S., but vide their letter dated 20th July, 1995, the appellant was informed that the Commandant, was the competent Authority to award punishment to the appellant.
10. The appellant, therefore, has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the Court of enquiry did not record the statement of witnesses, in the presence of the appellant nor was he given opportunity to cross- examine them which is the vested right of an accused person under the rules. And that instead of issuing a charge-sheet, as required under the rules, the accused was issued a letter calling his explanation. The proceedings based on such an explanation letter is nullity in the eye of law.
12. He argued further that because of calling for official work, back in the Depot, the appellant had lagged behind and was unable to continue with course, as the theoretical portion of the computer was very tough and required a lot of labour. As a result, the learned counsel further argued that the individual lost his interest due to lacking behind/missed out portion of the course from 13th September to 15th September, 1994. And that the instructor of the class obviously pointed him out for not replying properly, which created embarrassment for the appellant.
13. It has been contended vide objections filed on behalf of the respondent, that the appellant was detailed to attend COC (Computer Operator Course) Scheduled from 27th August, 1994 to 20th October, 1994 at Military College of Signals and ACS Directorate GHQ, Rawalpindi. The training was conducted in evening classes with effect from 10th September, 1994. The appellant entered GHQ defended area alongwith his other trainees on 19th September, 1994 at about 14-00 hrs. Came right up to ACS Directorate, then suddenly disappeared without informing anyone. He absented himself without leave from class and reported back on 26th September, 1994, only after repeated reminders. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent stated at bar that the Military Intelligence, went in search of the appellant and reported the Commandant of the Ordnance Depot terming the action on the part of the appellant against the principles of discipline.
14. It has further been contended that the appellant's name was deleted from the course and he was returned to the Depot due to his illegal absence, with effect from 6th October, 1994.
15. However, this aspect of the case has neither been reflected in the memo. Of appeal nor the learned counsel has dilated on it. In fact, it appears that it is his absence, which was not explained either by the appellant or by his learned counsel, which became the cause of his major penalty.
And this absence has been admitted by the appellant, in his reply to show-cause notice as reproduced below: "On 19th September, 1994, I attended the class at GHQ but could not continue my course, due to mental disturbance as I was very much mentally upset. I could not attend the course from 19th September to 25th September, 1994."
16. The appellant, as the record shows, that he had sufficient knowledge as well as practical experience of working on computer due to which he could very easily resume his training classes and cope up with the missed out portion efficiently. The example of Mr. Najamul Hassan witness No, 3 in this enquiry who also missed the classes but he completed the training course successfully without any background, knowledge and practical experience of working on computers.
17. The appellant was called back for only 2 days, his onward absence from course on 15th September, 1994, and 19th to 25th September, 1994, shows his Carelessness and wilful absence which amounts to misconduct. The stance of the appellant, that he missed an important portion of the course during these days in the Depot for official commitment was only plea to complicate and side track the issue of remaining absent wilfully, by involving the depot authorities.
18. The appellant has conferred that he could not attend the course from 19th September, 1994 to 25th September, 1994 or in the other words he remained absent without assigning any reason. He was attending a sensitive course in a sensitive location like protected area of GHQ. Absence from the course, as well as from the such an area would naturally be alarming as such against the principle of good conduct. In view of the confession by the appellant and type of the behaviour, there would be no other legal procedure but to adopt the proceedings as prescribed under rule 5 according to which only the show-cause notice would be enough. And this is, what the department should do. Although, it has been stated vide objections that disciplinary action against the appellant was initiated and charge-sheet served upon him on 18-10-1994. On receipt of his reply, he was served with show-cause notice on 23rd November, 1994. On receipt of reply to show-cause notice, the Court of Inquiry was held to investigate the matter. On finding the appellant guilty of misconduct, the Commandant passed the order for major penalty of reduction to lower post i,e, reduced from B-9 to L.D.C. B-5, as competent Authority.
19. From the above procedure no legal infirmity, appears to have been committed.
20. However, as per F.R. 29, which is reproduced below, the punishing authority has to specify the period of punishment, otherwise, it will be contrary to this settled law: "If a Government servant is, on account of misconduct or inefficiency, reduced to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in his time-scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether, on restoration, it shall operate to postpone future increments and if so, to what extent."
' We, therefore, modify the impugned order to the extent, that the punishment so awarded to the appellant would be only for two years, without cumulative effect.
21. No order as to costs.
22. Parties be informed.