S. NASIM HAIDER (MEMBER).---The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned orders bearing No. XI (C&W) 3-7/93, dated 9th May, 1994 passed by the Secretary to Government of Sind, Communication and Works Department, wherein the minor penalty of withholding to increments with cumulative effect, upon the appellant, was imposed and upheld by the Chief Secretary to Government of Sind vide Order dated 19-10-1994 though without cumulative effect.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations, dated 14th July, 1993. A departmental enquiry was also ordered to be conducted through Mr. Ghulam Rasool Burdhi, Superintending Engineer/Director (Highways), Sukkur against the appellant and to others. In all, there were five charges against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report a copy of which has been filed with this appeal. Thereafter, the impugned orders, dated 9th May, 1994 were passed by the competent Authority, later maintained but partly amended by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind vide his abovesaid orders.
3. We have heard Mr. Naimatullah Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellant at length as well as Mr. Azizur Rehman, Standing Counsel for official respondents. We have also perused with their help the various documents and record of this case.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that out of five charges the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant on four charges viz, charges Nos. 1, 2, 3 and S. As regards charge No.4 (on which the appellant was reportedly held guilty) reads as follows:--- "4, He accepted the item of R.C.C. 1:2:4 which is completed much below specification, as it is full of honey combing, oversized Bajri, poor cement ratio, hopelessly finished (plastered) thus putting the Government in financial loss."
He contended that the Enquiry Officer had incorrectly convicted the appellant of this charge No.4 allegedly on his admission, as recorded at page 9 (last para.) of Enquiry Report reproduced below: "However, the Executive Engineer while furnishing reply to this charge admits to finishing work to be of not good quality and consequently he allowed payment of this item at reduced rate of Rs.38.65 instead of Rs.39.25 per unit. As a result, the contractor remained penalized for an amount of Rs.
7,763. This is no way of making compensation to meet the loss of Government. The Field Officers at their own level ought to make all efforts to exercise strict control over supervision of works to produce good quality."
The learned counsel for the appellant referred to last para. Of page 5 of the appellant's reply to the charge-sheet dated 28-7-1993, which reads as under:--.
"I do not claim that the finishing was of superior quality. A visit on site would show that the finishing was of fairly good quality fully according to specification in the estimates. Even then as an at of abundant precaution I had deducted some amount payable to the Contractor on the item of finishing. Consequently the allegation is misconceived."
His contention was that it was not an admission of the charge and amounted to incorrect reading and interpretation of his reply by the Enquiry Officer. He also contended that whereas the other to accused officers were acquitted on all the 5 charges by the same Enquiry Officer, the appellant was unnecessarily discriminated and convicted of charge No.4 which resulted in imposition of minor penalty upon him. It was, however, pointed out to him and accepted that he has not raised this plea, in his memo of appeal for there were any document in record to substantiate the allegations of discrimination against the appellant.
5. We have given serious thoughts to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant whether the last para of his reply at page No.3, dated 28th July, 1993 amounted to admission of the charge No.4 or otherwise. However, we do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in his own words it was an at of "Abundant precaution" because in all the civil contracts the security of the contractor is retained after completion of the work for a specific period to get the defects, if any, rectified at his expenses. The reduction of the rates from Rs. 39.25 to 38.65 per unit is apparently an at of guilty conscience. The amount so deducted viz. Rs.7, 763 amounts to imposition of a penalty for work done of lesser quality than required or expected. We also feel that the appellant was apparently playing with words. While stating 'A visit on site would show that the finishing was of fairly good quality' because the standards of fair and good word, are different and de facto there is nothing like fairly good quality work. It could either be of fair or good quality.
6. In view of the above we are unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It was also pointed by the learned Standing Counsel for official respondents that there were no elements of prejudice or malice in the enquiry report and the appellant himself has applauded his fair mindedness in departmental appeal. The final impugned order of withholding to annual increments without cumulative effect, is therefore, maintained and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.