PRESENT

1. Mr. Allah Nawaz Khosa Advocate, Counsel for the appellant.

2. Mr. Atta Muhammad Khan, District Attorney.

3. Mr. M. Hassan, Assistant Litigation, D.R.

4. Mr. Rameez Ahmad Khan, Admin Officer, D.R.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was proceeded against under PEEDA Act, 2006 on the following charge:-

“He failed to perform his official duties as store keeper and did no make entry of store which is detected by the audit. He is this guilty misconduct & inefficiency.”

Resultantly, appellant was awarded Major penalty of “Dismissal from Service” & “Recovery of Rs.4,43,145/-” by the respondent No.2 i.e. Secretary, Livestock Department, Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 11.06 2014. Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred departmental appeal before respondent No.1 i.e. Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide order dated 23.01.2023. Hence the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 03.02.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney having been heard at length, the available record has also been perused.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and perusal of file I am of the opinion that the appellant was departmentally proceeded against for: –

“He failed to perform his official duties as store keeper and did not make entry of store which is detected by the audit. He is this guilty misconduct & inefficiency.

And major penalty of dismissal from service & recovery amounting of Rs.4,43,145/- imposed against the appellant, departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected, hence this appeal. I have perused the case file, from perusal of case file it appears that the appellant was jointly proceeded against along with other employees of the department namely Dr. Falak Sher Khan, Farm Superintendent & Mr. M. Arshad, Office Superintendent for misconduct and inefficiency and major penalty of recovery of Rs. 4,43,145/- was imposed against Dr. Falak Sher Khan, Officer Incharge, Livestock Experiment Station while M. Arshad, Superintendent Livestock Experiment Station was exonerated from the charges. While the present appellant who ws the junior clerk was imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs.4,43,145/- as well as penalty of dismissal from service. I have further perused the inquiry report, from perusal of the inquiry report, it appears that the Inquiry Officer did not record any evidence of any witness. Even though the appellant did not join the inquiry proceedings while the inquiry was conducted against the 02 other accused officials. However, the Inquiry Officer was under duty bound to record the evidence of the witnesses and discuss the documents on the basis of which he came to the conclusion. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer did not fix the liability of the appellant as well as other co-accused to the embezzlement of cotton. He was jointly held the present appellant and project director Muhammad Arshad held responsible for the embezzlement and he recommended the penalty of recovery of Rs.8,36,290/- jointly from the appellant and other co- officials. However, major penalty of recovery of Rs.4,43,145/- was imposed against Mr. Falak Sher Khan without his dismissal and major penalty of dismissal from service and recovery amounting of Rs.4,43,145/- was imposed against the present appellant, while Mr. M. Arshad, Superintendent Livestock was exonerated from the charges leveled against him. While the inquiry Officer had held all the 03officials has guilty of the charges in his report and the present appellant has been discriminated against while imposing the punishment. The inquiry was initiated on the basis of audit reports Moreover, there is no direct evidence on record against the present appellant on the basis of which he was held as guilty of the charges leveled against him and he has been discriminated while imposing the penalty. It was also brought in the knowledge of this Court that the recovery amount found outstanding against the appellant has already been recovered from the appellant. So, keeping in view the circumstances of the case as well as documents placed on record I am of the opinion that the appellant was given very harsh punishment.

4. For the forgoing reasons, the instant appeal is partially accepted and the impugned orders are set aside and the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” awarded to the appellant is modified into penalty of “Forfeiture of Approved Service for Two Years”. Consequently, the appellant is reinstated in service, however, the intervening period is treated as leave without pay.