TANVIR AHMED vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---The petitioner While serving as a Lecturer in English was departmentally proceeded against for tampering with the original seniority list of Lecturers (General Cadre) prepared on 1-1-1979 by converting his serial number from 1087 to 456 in order to earn undue and out of turn promotion. He was also charged for acts of omission and commission by the departmental authority and proceeded against under the provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as Rules 1975). After holding an enquiry the departmental authority inflicted upon the petitioner major penalty of reduction to initial scale of B-17 vide order dated 22-1-1995. The petitioner impugned vires of the punishment and appealed before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), but without any success. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

2. When this petition came up for hearing after recording the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner having already been promoted to B-18 could not be punished by reduction to B- 17 and also placing him at the initial stage of the Scale being violative of rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Rules 1975, a notice was issued to the Advocate-General Punjab as well the Secretary, Education Department.

3. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent alongwith Mr. Khalid Mahmood, Section Officer, but with little assistance.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that interms of rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1975 inter alia penalty amounting to reduction to a lower scale or post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale could not be inflicted upon a civil servant against whom a charge of misconduct was established. He has contended that the petitioner serving in B-18 could either be reverted to B-17 or inflicted one time reduction to a lower stage or post or time scale.

5. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel when he stated that the petitioner was promoted to B-18 as move-over of the petitioner to B-18 is not tantamount to promotion indeed, it is only awarded to an incumbent after reaching the maximum of his substantive scale.

Adverting to the question of punishment, we find that the petitioner has been serving in the Education Department for the last 20 years and no doubt charge against him is serious and grave in nature, punishment of reduction to a lower stage in B-17 inflicted by the departmental authority without specifying the period of punishment appears to be violative of F.R. 29 which reads as under:- "F.R.

29. If a Government servant is, on account of misconduct or inefficiency, reduced to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in his time scale, the Authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether, on restoration, it shall operate to postpone future increments and if so, to what extent."

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to modify the impugned judgment by restricting the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner for a period of four years which will meet the ends of justice.

7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons this petition is converted into appeal and partly allowed as indicated hereinabove.