MANZOOR-UL-HASSAN Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑Appellant has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab Communication and Works Department, Superintending Engineer, 3rd Provincial Building Circle, Lahore and Executive Engineer 5th Provincial Buildings Division, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned order at Annexure `C' be set aside and the orders of censure be expunged from the A.C.R. of the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working in `K' Provincial Buildings Sub‑Division, Lahore, was served with a show‑cause notice in September, 1984. The details of the show‑cause notice are at Annexure `A'. A reply to the show‑cause notice was submitted to the res pondent No. 3 by the appellant on 18th October, 1982 After considera tion of the reply to the show‑cause notice, the appellant was censured vide impugned order, dated 6th December, 1982 by respondent No. 3. The appel lant made an appeal to the Superintending Engineer, 3rd Provincial Building Circle, Lahore on 11th December. 1982 which has not been decided, though a period of 90 days has since elapsed. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice with the allegations that he had made excess measurements and hence he was guilty of misconduct. It has been further submitted by him that the work being in excess of Rs. 25,000 the entries were required to be made by the S.D.O. himself and not by the appellant. The appellant had made the entries in the measurement book on behalf of the S D.O. These entries were checked 100% by the S.D.O. and the payment was made for these measure ments only which were corrected by the S.D.O. himself when he checked these measurements 100%. Thus, there was no question of any variation as alleged in the show‑cause notice. It was simply a question of judgment as the S.D.O. thought fit to pay only for the steelite windows which had been fixed and not for the windows actually manufactured. Under these circumstances and facts of the case, the punishment so awarded to the appel lant is uncalled for and unjustified.

5. We have also heard the view point of learned District Attorney asserted by the representative of the Department. It has been conceded by the representative of the Department that for a work exceeding Rs. 25,000 the entries were required to be recorded by the S.D.O. himself. However, there is a general practice in the Department that Sub‑Engineer records the entries in the measurement book which are checked 100"/ by the S.D.O. It has also been conceded by the department representative that 100% checking was made by the S.D.O. in this particular case, hence, the payment was made according to the measurements so found by the S.D.O. There was no over payment made in this case and there was no loss to the Govern ment. The learned District Attorny, however, has defended the action taken against the appellant by the respondent No. 3 and has submitted that the appellant did make the excess measurements as found later on, when these were checked by the S.D.O. Thus, the appellant is guilty of negligence of duties and has been punished correctly.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have checked the record with their assistance. It has been conceded by the representative of the department that entries in this case were required to be recorded by the S.D.O as the work was in excess of Rs. 25,000 ; but as per practice in the Department, the Sub‑Engineer had made the entries in the measurement book. It has also been confirmed by representative of the Department that these measurements were checked, 100%, by the S.D.O as per procedure laid down by the Department. No over payment was made and there was no loss to Government. We have satisfied ourselves and agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the variation so found in the measurements was simply a question of judgment as the Sub‑Divisional Officer thought fit to pay only for the steelite windows which had been fixed and not for the windows actually manufactured. Thus, the appellant is innocent in the matter.

7. The upshot of above discussion is that the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the impugned order is set aside.

There is no order as to costs.

M. I. Appeal accepted.