ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.- This judgment will dispose of the above two petitions as they impugn the legality of the common judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 17.6.1999, The former petition is by the Punjab Government with a prayer to restore the punishment of reduction in rank to a lower post which was imposed by the competent authority and setting aside the impugned judgment whereby the said penalty was reduced and was converted into reduction of two stages in the the scale as was recommended by the authorised officer. In the latter petitioner wants to be exonerated in toto from the charges levelled against him. The petitioner in CP-850-L/2000 was proceeded against on the disciplinary rules for the following charges (irregularities):- "Tenders for the work, Lahore Jaranwala road (Grid Station to Chainpole) were floated approximately for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- whereas in the 1st running, 2nd running and 3rd running bills payments were made for Rs. 117,415/- Rs. 2,19,690/- and Rs. 3,17,686/- respectively. This shows that the ' actual estimated cost of the project was much higher than the amount reflected in the first question but he deliberately showed lesser amount in order to award the work to one of his favorite contractors with mala fide intention. Moreover this is a clear violation of para 2.61 of B&R Code, 1960 which states that the tenders are to be widely advertised in the most open & public manner through newspapers. Further the enhancement of the agreement from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.
3,17,686/- is also misuse of authority and financial indiscipline entailing misconduct and mala fide intention".
2. The authorised officer recommended imposition of reduction of two stages in the the scale but the competent authority instead punished the petitioner with reduction in rank to a lower post.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in CP-957-L/2000 submitted that the respondent exceeded its authority in matter of fixing the amount in tender and was, therefore, liable to be dealt with severely. On the other hand the learned counsel in Petition No. 850-L/2000 submitted that the charge against the petitioner was of procedural irregularity as the alleged irregularity attributed to the petitioner had not resulted into any financial loss to the Government and that the officer proceeded against for similar charges, had been exonerated of the charges. It was further pointed that the inquiry officer had recommended simple censure and, therefore, the Service Tribunal should have at least imposed that penalty.
4. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced from both sides as no legal flaw could be indicated in the impugned judgment nor we could be satisfied that any substantial question of law of public importance is involved in the matter.
5. Both the petitions are dismissed and leave is refused.