QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, MEMBER.- Vide office order No. 127/2000 ESTT (A), dated 27.7.2000, major penalty of reduction to a lower post of UDC was imposed upon the appellant by the Deputy Collector of Customs. The appellant challenged such order in appeal before this Tribunal on 1.12.2000 praying that order of the respondents dated 27.7.2000 be declared as illegal as no major penalty could be awarded to him without regular departmental inquiry.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant, who was an Examiner alongwith one Adnan Asghar, Upper Division Clerk (UDC) had been assigned tho Auction work. Both of them were held responsible for their involvement in mis-reporting of the weight etc., of the goods auctioned by them which could result in substantial loss to the Government Revenue, but the same was prevented by cancelling the bids of the auction in consequence of a preliminary inquiry held into the bunglings by the appellant and said Adnan Asghar. Thereafter, separate charge-sheets were issued to the appellant and Adnan Asghar, UDC. The appellant replied the charge-sheet, but the same did not find favour with the respondents; hence a show-cause notice was issued to him by the respondents and after providing him an opportunity of personal hearing major penalty of reduction to a lower post of UDC Was imposed on him in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The departmental appeal dated 26.8.2000 submitted by the appellant to the respondent No. 1 was not replied to; hence, the appellant was compelled to file the appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The respondents filed the written comments in which they reiterated the facts of the case and stated that after observing all the necessary requirements of the disciplinary proceedings under the law, the appellant was rightly awarded the major penalty of reduction to a lower post.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly no regular inquiry into the allegations against the appellant was held by the respondents. The preliminary inquiry held in the matter cannot be equated with the regular inquiry as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, It is settled law that in a case of major penalty where serious allegations of facts are denied by accused civil servant, holding of regular inquiry is absolutely necessary for providing the accused civil servant a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and also to bring, on record his defence. Such discrepancy alone can be treated sufficient for remanding the case to the respondents, but the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the punishment of Adnan Asghar, who was also awarded the penalty of reduction to a lower post, was changed by the respondents to a minor penalty of reduction to a lower time scale by one stage that the case of said Adnan Asghar being identical to the case of appellant, he would be satisfied if the punishment of appellant is also converted to reduction to a lower time scale by one stage. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of appellant and Adnan Asghar were not identical as the appellant was Examiner whereas Adnan Asghar was a UDC. The learned counsel, however, had no objection, if major penalty of the appellant was converted into that of reduction to a lower time scale by one stage.
6. Without further scrutinizing/discussing the merits of the case of the parties, in view of no objection by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are' inclined to convert he penalty of the appellant from reduction to a lower post of UDC" to "reduction to a lower time scale by one stage".
The appellant has already been reinstated in service after his suspension hence, there would be no question of any back-benefits in this case.
7. Announced in-open Court.
8. No order as to costs. Copies of judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover under Rule 21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.