Muhammad Ashraf, former Kanungo, has called in question order of respondent No,1, dated 10-1- 2002 whereby major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the appellant and. The appeal made to the Appellate Authority harving not been attended to within the statutory period of 90 days, the present appeal has been filed.
2. Appellant was served with the following show-cause notice:--
(i) During annual inspection of Revenue Circle Male Hans an embezzlement of Rs,1,54,678 by Patwari Nazir Ahmad Bodla was detected. It was observed that you have not mentioned anything in this regard in your monthly inspection notes during the months of June, July, August, 2001 and December, 2001. It is thus obvious that the patwari had embezzled this amount with your connivance. You have failed to perform your official duty honestly and efficiently.
(ii) Rao Nadeem Ahmad, ADO (Rev.) has reported that you were required to explain your position regarding your indifferent and, arrogant attitude towards your officers about the performance of your duties. You also refused to receive the notice of explanation on 14-11-2001 as reported by NTO, ADO (Rev.) has taken serious notice of disobeyance and strongly recommended disciplinary action against you.
(iii) You were also found absent on 30-20-2001 at 2:00 by ADO. (Rev). You also sent fake medical certificate for leave from 5-11-2001 to 11-11-2001 and the same was not granted and you were required on 6-11-2001 to attend the office but it was reported by Naib Qasid that you were not at home on 8-11-2001, in spite of the fact that you were supposed to be at home as bed rest was advised by your private Doctor.
' In reply, appellant maintained that he was not responsible for any embezzlement by the Patwari of the amount of Rs,1,54,678 who on 13-11-2001 was punished with stoppage of increment for two years as he deposited the said amount. The allegation contained in charge No,2 was denied, whereas reply to charge No,3 was that appellant fell ill and was confined to bed on the advice of the .Doctor from 5-11-2001 to 11-11-2001 supported by the medical certificate which was genuine. Reply made by the appellant did not find favour with the authority who passed the dismissal order dated 10-1- 2002 impugned in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that all the allegations in charge-sheet were of factual nature which require a detail enquiry but the authorities adopted a short-cut to punish the appellant in a slipshod and perfunctory manner which has carried a great miscarriage of justice and the impugned order warrants reversal in the eye of law. Conversely, learned District Attorney supported impugned-orders.
4. I have attended to the arguments and have also perused the record.
5. As far as the charge No,1 of not mentioning the embezzlement of the Patwari to the tune of Rs,1,54,678 is concerned, in the monthly inspection notice, the reply of the appellant that the Patwari returned the amount and was imposed minor penalty of stoppage of increment for two years, clinches the issue for the reason that if the appellant was treated as an abettor his case should have been examined departmentally alongwith that of the Patwari. There is no denial to fact that the Patwari's case ended on 3-11-2001, whereas the show-cause notice was served upon the appellant on 23-11-2001. The charge No,2 based on factual plinth should have been decided through a regular. Enquiry by examining witnesses which has not been done so, therefore, no proper adjudication could have been reached. Appellant should have examined himself from the Medical Superintendent of a Government controlled Hospital, but instead he sent a medical certificate of a private practitioner advising him rest from 5-11-2001 to 11-11-2001. The absence being for 7 days, did not warrant imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service. The appeal is partially accepted by setting aside the impugned order dated 10-11-2002 converting the penalty of dismissal from service into stoppage of increment for three years, after reinstating the appellant in service treating the period which he remained out of service as leave of the kind due.