' The case came up for final arguments on 24th May, 2001. The appellant Mr. Khalid Siddique himself argued his case. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Inspector Excise and Taxation was present as Departmental Representative.
2. The appellant who is an ETO appointed since 1 4-1987 contends that he was posted as Section Officer in the Excise and Taxation Department in 1997 when he was awarded major penalty of reduction in time scale on the recommendation of the Authorised Officer by the Secretary, Excise and Taxation although the charges which pertained to misconduct etc. Were mostly not proved as a result of enquiry. Moreover, there were also contradictions between the findings of Enquiry Officer, recommendations of the Authorised Officer and final orders of the Authority. For example according to the Enquiry Report charges Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 stood proved/partly proved whereas according to Authorised Officer Charges Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 stood proved. Similarly in the orders of the penalty, there is mention of 5 charges having been proved whereas according to the Enquiry Report and the Recommendations of the Authorised Officer 4 charges were proved/partly proved.
The appellant has also referred to some procedural deficiencies in his appeal which are of minor nature. "The crux of the allegations against the appellant was that he had not attended to some references promptly, received in his section and resultantly there had been created a situation of embarrassm ent for the Secretary, Excise and Taxation.
3. I have looked into the contents of the allegations as well as the procedure of enquiry conducted in this case. The procedure was in order. There are, however, inconsistencies and contradictions between the findings of the Enqiry Officer and the Authorised Officer. It is a fact that a Section Officer is not supposed to assume the duties which are to be performed by his Staff including prompt putting up of cases at the desk of Section Officer. The appellant appears to have been condemned for negligence of duties which according to the Manual of Secretarial Instructions could be attributed to the Section Staff. At the same time the procedure adopted for disciplinary action against the appellant does not suffer from any legal deficiency.
4. After having heard the arguments of the appellant and the view-point of the representative of the Department, and keeping in view the circumstances and facts of the case, the major penalty of reduction in time scale awarded to the appellant is held as extreme and contrary to norms. I, therefore, reduce this penalty to the minor penalty of Censure. The impugned order of penalty shall stand set aside to that extent.