' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).----The appellant Atta-urRehman who is working as a clerk under senior Postmaster-General, Lahore Cant. Respondent No, 2, and has a postal service of 30 years at his credit with unblemished record, was served upon him show-cause notice on 5-6-1995, with a statement of allegations reproduced below as to why he should not be dismissed from service of P.P.S.C. Under Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 and that his reply should reach the authority within 14 days:- "1. You Mr. Atta-ur-Rehman, M.O. Issue compilation clerk (now on forced leave) were ordered to work as P.M.P. Compilation clerk in addition to your own duties but you disobeyed the orders and refused to perform the duties vide application dated 23-4-1995.
2. While working as M.O. Issue compilation clerk, Lahore Cantt. G.P.O. You failed to perform your legitimate duties and the M.O. Issue returns for the period from November, 1994 to April, 1995 were not submitted by you to the Director of Accounts, P.P.S.C., Lahore.
3. Due to inefficiency and disobedience of orders you caused inconvenience to the Director of Accounts, P.P.S.C., Lahore. Chief Accounts Officer (Revenue), P.P.S.C. Islamabad, P.M.G. Southern Punjab, Lahore and this office."
2. The appellant made a reply to aforementioned show-cause notice on 19-6-1995, whereby he demanded a copy of the order in which he was asked to work as P.M.P. Compilation clerk in addition to his own duties, as well as a copy of the application dated 23-4-1995, in which he refused to perform his duties as P.M.P. Compilation clerk to enable him to submit his defence within the specified period of 14 days. He made another application on 4-7-1995 whereby he acknowledged the receipt of copy of his application dated 23-4-1995 and made again a request to supply the copy of remaining document.
3. The appellant ultimately made a reply to the show-cause notice issued to him on dated nil, wherein he had stated that he was not supplied the documents as claimed by the respondents vide letter dated 4-7-1995. As such he alleged that a reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the appellant to defend him. And again made a request to make him available the required document to enable him to submit his defense reply.
4. The appellant was issued IInd show-cause notice on 6-7-1995 which is also reproduced below:-- "You are hereby informed that in your application dated 23-4-1995 you admitted that you were ordered to work in pension branch. A copy of the said application has already been supplied to you. You should clearly understand that there is a fundamental law ' facts admitted need not be proved'.
' A final notice is given to you for submitting your written reply to the show-cause notice without any further loss of time i,e, within 48 hours, otherwise the case shall be decided ex parte on merits."
' This final notice was replied by the appellant on 9-7-1995 wherein he questioned their authority to order reply within 48 hours.
5. The impugned order was passed by the authorities on 10-7-1995, wherein repeating the allegation, the appellant was imposed major penalty of reduction of two steps in his pay-scale for a period of two years with immediate effect with the hope that the- official would mend himself and perform his duties properly.
6. He was directed by respondent No, 2 to appear before respondent No, 2 on 16-3-1996 for personal hearing vide letter dated 11-3-1996. However, the appellant replied vide his application dated 11-3-1996 that he would like to appear before him alongwith his Advocate, which request was not accepted vide letter dated 24-3-1996. Thus, he appeared for personal hearing on 25-3-1996.
The appellant submitted his appeal to the appellate authority on 19-8-1995, which was rejected vide letter dated 27-3-1996. Hence this appeal.
7. While pleading the case of the appellant the learned counsel's main focus was on conducting the normal enquiry. His main argument was that in such cases, the Enquiry Officer was needed to be appointed, who should have conducted the enquiry, by calling the witnesses and cross- examining them, and then the report compiled and submitted to the authority alongwith recommendation. Then show-cause notice serviced and the appellant afforded the personal hearing. On the contrary a summary procedure was adopted by the respondents as such was not in accordance with the law. Such procedures are adopted according to him in the cases, involving the security matter of the country.
8. The comments have also been filed by the respondents whereby it has been contended that if the appellant has blotless and unblemished record at his credit. It has been stated, that appellant has below average record. He was awarded punishment several times by the competent Authority.
9. It has been submitted that appellant was issued show-cause notice vide Memo. Dated 5-6-1995 for not performing his legitimate duties as M.O. Issue Compilation Clerk and disobedience of orders to perform his duties as P.M.P. Clerk.
10. It was also reported by Junior Accountant, Lahore Cantt. G.P.O. Vide letter dated 13/14-5-1995 that M.O. Issue, U.M.O. And Pension Branches had not compared the figures. He also failed to submit the M.O. Issue return for the month of November, 1994 to April, 1995 to the Director of Accounts, P.P.S.C., Lahore. He was also directed to work in Pension Compilation Branch but he refused to work vide his application dated 23-4-1995. Thus the appellant was served with show-cause notice on 5- 6-1995. Finding his reply unsatisfactory he was imposed major penalty of reduction of two steps in his time scale for two years.
11. It has also been contradicted if the returns were handed over to the Assistant Accounts Officer c/o Director of Accounts, P.P.S.C., Lahore on 5-5-1995 under receipt, but 5-5-1995 was Friday as such holiday.
12. We heard both the parties at length, and perused the documents before us. The perusal of the documents reveal that the appellant was verbally ordered to work as P.M.P. Compilation Clerk in addition to his own duties. The appellant has admitted that he was ordered though verbally to do additional work in pension seat, vide letter dated 23-4-1994, however, he tactfully declined to do so on the plea that he was already burdened with his duties, and that he was also 'not feeling well.
13. It was also reported against him, that returns did not reach the destination in time. He was, therefore, issued the show-cause notice on 5-6-1995 to reply allegation within 14 days to which instead of replying to the allegation levelled against him, he repeatedly demanded the documents of which one was supplied to him, and other had no real existence at all, since it was verbal and was pertaining to do an additional work.
14. The appellant was intimated vide letter dated 4-7-1995 that he was supplied, the relevant document and that he was applying delaying tactics and that no further time limitation would be allowed. In the same letter he was directed to submit his written reply to show-cause notice by return mail, otherwise the case would be decided on merits. Even then, instead of making direct reply to the show-cause notice, he repeated the same request for document vide his letter dated 6-7-1995.
15. Under the circumstances, he was issued a final notice on 6-7-1995 whereby he was clarified that there is a fundamental law, 'Facts admitted need not be proved', and that he was being given a final notice for submitting written reply to show-cause notice without any further loss of time i,e, within 48 hours, otherwise his case would be decided ex parte on merits.
16. His reply in response made on 9-7-1995 was evasive, and did not contain any reply to the allegation made in the statement of allegations. On the contrary, he started the controversy, whether or not the reply to the show-cause notice within 48 hours was in accordance with law. He presumed it was not, knowing fully well that he was directed to submit the reply to show-cause notice which was served upon him on 5-6-1995, within 14 days, which he failed to do even after the passage of a little more than one month, when he finally was directed to submit such reply within 48 hours vide letter dated 6-7-1995.
17. Under the circumstances, his argument that 48 hours' notice was not in accordance with law, is rejected. The fact the returns bear the 5-5-1995 as the date of receipt, which is clear Friday, creates doubt. Even otherwise the documents show the returns were not received in time, and that is why it was complained in writing.
18. From the above it is evident that appellant is at fault, and has disobeyed the orders of his superiors and has committed the act of negligence. So for these allegations are proved.
19. It appears there is some personal clash in between the appellant and his superior. From the writing of the appellant it appears that there seems some personality problems with him.
20. Whatever, the position, in our opinion, the punishment awarded to the appellant is major one and is harsh in comparison to the magnitude of the guilt. His decline to accept the additional work could be genuine either on the ground of already large quantum of the work on health. The appellant has rendered 30 years of service to the respondent-department. Taking the lenient of the situation, and purely on humanitarian ground, we convert the impugned order into withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect.
21. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.