' DR. AKHTAR HASSAN KHAN (MEMBER).---This is an appeal by the appellant, Muhammad Mobin Gul Khan, Inspecting Additional Commissioner, Income Tax, Lahore, (B-19) against the imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement from service imposed on him by Notification dated 23-1- 1998. .2. The appellant joined service as Income Tax Officer (B-17) in the year 1979 through competitive examination. Subsequently, he was promoted to B-18 and then to B-19 as Inspecting Additional Commissioner on the basis of good record.
3. The first charge-sheet was issued to him on 10-5-1997, second on 22-5-1997, third on 25-6-1997 and fourth on 10-10-1997. Mr. Mazhar Farooq Sherazi, Director (Enquiry Wing) was appointed his first Inquiry Officer who submitted his findings vide Letter No.3(43)/97/-EW-841 dated 4-9-1997 to the Authorised Officer absolving the appellant from all the charges and not found him guilty on any account. The Government being not satisfied with the first inquiry report and ordered de novo inquiry and Mr. S.M. Munir Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Lahore was appointed as second Inquiry Officer, who also absolved him from four out of five charges and only found him guilty of charge No.2 which pertains to living beyond his known means and he concluded as follows:-- "after examining all the facts and material evidence the accused officer is found guilty of misconduct in violation of Rule 16(b) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 to the extent that he indulged in ostentation of ceremonies etc. The charge is proved."
' Rule 16(B) of Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 states as follows:-- "No Government servant shall live beyond his means or indulge ostentation on occasions of marriage or other ceremonies."
Rule 3(c)(ii) of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 defining misconduct states as follows:-- "he has assumed a style of living beyond his ostensible means;"
4. The appellant in his appearance before the Inquiry Officer has stated as follows:-- "My wife is a national celebrity. By virtue of her aged (sic) long profession as a super star of Pakistan Film Industry since 1974, she enjoys ceremoniously a repute of public applause and official recognition both at home and abroad. Being wedded to her since 1981, even during the training of my this service career, and father of three kids out of this wedlock it constitutes a family. Hence I cannot be kept away of her National and International privileges and prerogatives; whether it is Prime Minister's House official celebrations in the country or a ceremonial National gathering at British Parliament arranged by his Lordship Lord Aric Ave Burry Chairman Human Rights Commission of British Parliament or a dinner at Royal Palace at Jeddah during the performance of Hajj or an official participation at Kings Palace Bahrain, on the occasion of Bahrain National Day the kids and husband had also to join. To marry a ceremoniously celebrated affluent lady is neither a sin nor a crime. This charge is absolutely vague. One fails to understand that how my simple and modest living has been misunderstood as ostentatious."
' There is no doubt that after marrying a film celebrity, the life style of the appellant does not conform to a middle class Government servant and ostentatious living became a way of his life.
However, he was never accused of corruption or malfeasance in order to finance his ostentatious living which was financed by his wife. The punishment of compulsory retirement in his case is severe and it would be ideal of the appellant had sought retirement after his marriage with film star. As the charge of ostentatious living is proved beyond doubt, the punishment of compulsory retirement is reduced to reduction in rank for four years from the date he was compulsorily retired.
He shall, however, be entitled to back benefits in the reduced scale from the date of his retirement.
The appeal is, therefore, partially accepted with no order as to costs,
5. Parties be informed.