' Petitioner, an Accountant in Auqaf Department, Lahore Zone was proceeded against under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), on the charges that on 1-6-1997 at the time of cash counting in Mazar Hazrat Data Ganj Balchsh, Lahore, a sum of Rs,4,010 was recovered from his pocket on the pointing of Noor Muhammad, Security Guard and this act of the petitioner amounts to theft. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who found the charges proved. However, in his report, the Enquiry Officer went on to state that it seems a deliberate attempt has been made by witnesses to lessen the burden on the petitioner. On receipt of the report, the Authorised Officer, oh 12/13 February, 1998, imposed lesser penalty of censure upon the petitioner. Petitioner asserts that after the imposition of this penalty, the petitioner moved the Department for recall of the order of suspension and for payment of salary and in this connection, file was put up by respondent No,2, the Authority, to respondent No,1, who on 23-6-1998, issued a notice to the petitioner (Annexure "F") to show cause as to why his sentence be not enhanced and he be not dismissed from service. Petitioner duly contested the notice vide Annexure "E". However, respondent No,1 was not satisfied with the reply and proceeded to pass the order, dated 28-7-1998 by which he imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition.
2. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondents Nos,l and 2 jointly, the correctness and legality of the orders has been justified. It is stated that on the facts proved, the Authorised Officer was not right in imposing the minor penalty of censure. It is stated that offence is too serious, inasmuch as, the petitioner was found in possession of a sum of Rs,4,010 at the time of counting of donations delivered in the box kept at the Mazar of Hazrat Data Gunj Bakhsh. An objection to the maintainability of this petition is also taken on the ground that under rule 16 of the Rules, the petitioner could have availed the remedy of review petition.
3. In support of the petition it is contended that the order of the Authorised Officer, dated 12/13-2- 1998, imposing minor penalty of censure became final as nobody challenged the same. It is stated that respondent No,1 could not have issued the show-cause notice as the file was put up before him for the purpose of resciding the suspension order and for payment of salary/dues to the petitioner. Learned counsel has maintained that the action taken against the petitioner is beyond the scope of rule 18 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the Auqaf Department, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order of dismissal by reiterating the facts already noted above and as are contained in the parawiase comments.
4. It is not in dispute that though the petitioner is an employee of Auqaf Department created under Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, but the rules are applicable to him just as they are to all other employees. The fate of the case would depend upon the scope -of revisional power. Rule 18 of the Rules is reproduced below:-- "18. Revision.---(1) The Government may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any authority for the purpose of satisfying as to the conrrectness, legality or propriety of any finding, penalty or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such authority.
(2) On examining any record under this rule, the Government may direct the authority to make further inquiry into -the charges of which the accused has been acquitted and discharged, and may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on an appellate authority: ' Provided any order under this rule made prejudicial to the accused shall not be passed unless he has been given an opportunity to show-cause against the proposed action: ' Provided further that an order imposing punishment or exonerating the accused shall not be revised suo motu or otherwise after the lapse of a period of one year from the date of its communication to the accused except in case, where appeal is preferred against the punishment.
(Substituted vide Notification No,S.O.R.1 (SGA&ID) 1/7/86, dated 6th June, 1993).
(3) No proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the accused who has a right of appeal under these rules and has not brought the appeal."
5. It will be seen that under sub-rule (1) the Government has been given the extensive power to call for, and examine the record of any proceedings. Once the record has been called for and is before the Government, under sub-rule (2) it can pass orders for further enquiry into the charges from which the accused has been acquitted and discharged and it can further in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on an appellate authority. Such powers are available under rule 15 of the Rules and unquestionably under the said rule the appellate authority can enhance the penalty after observing certain formalities like prior information to the accused and affording reasonable opportunity to him to show cause against the action taken. The argument that in this case the file was put up before the Government for a different purpose and, therefore, the show-cause notice and consequential dismissal is unwarranted, has no force. If the Government can call for the record, there is no reason to exclude cases like the present one from the purview of the revisional power. Such an interpretation would not only be illogical but also against public interest. It is held that respondent No,1, legitimately and competently exercised the power of revision. The argument that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner is factually incorrect. The report of the Enquiry Officer is attached as Annexure "B". It does not support the above contention, although it is correct that the Enquiry Officer has concluded that a deliberate attempt is being made to give benefit of doubt to the accused. The contention is otherwise incorrect as petitioner seems to be happy with the imposition of minor penalty of censure as he never challenged it. It is well- established that even a minor penalty can only be imposed after the finding in guilt against the Officer.
6. The contention that in exercise of suo motu powers, the punishment could not have been enhanced after three months is equally devoid of force as the relevant rule stands amended with effect from 6-6-1993 and period of three months in second proviso to rule 18(2) has been enhanced to one year as is clear from the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, printed in Punjab ESTACODE. The penalty of censure was passed on 12/13 February,1998,and impugned order passed on 25-7-1998, is well within one year.
7. In my opinion the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief as held in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and other; v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236).
8. For all that what has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed with costs.