1994 PLP 418 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212‑‑‑Charge of misappropriation‑‑‑Imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement and' recovery of specified amount‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No 'evidence was produced to establish charge of misappropriation of specified amount‑‑‑No concrete evidence was available on record to establish negligence of civil servant with regard to matter entrusted to him by the Department‑‑‑Order of compulsory retirement and imposition of penalty of specified amount on civil servant was not warranted and he was entitled to reinstatement in service with back benefits in circumstances. Appellant in person Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1993. NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ: ‑‑This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the order dated 19‑10‑1991 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeal preferred by Khadim Hussain herein against the order dated 30‑7‑1988 passed by the Director, Public Instructions (respondent No.l) herein was dismissed. The Director, Public Instructions in has impugned order had imposed penalties of compulsory retirement and recovery of Rs.4,250 upon Khadim Hussain appellant. The background of this case is that the appellant while posted as Secondary School teacher in Government Middle School, Chak No.58/R.B., Faisalabad was entrusted with the task of looking after the litigation of the department. During this period an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Control Authorities for dispossession of a building occupied by the Government New Model Girls High School, Faisalabad which was under the Education Department. It is alleged that the appellant was deputed to make arrangements for the filing of a Writ Petition in the High Court against the said order. In this connection some money was collected from some of the schools in the area and it was alleged that the appellant had misappropriated Rs.4,250 from the amount entrusted to him in connection with the filing of the Writ Petition and further that he had shown negligence in pursuing the matter so that the Writ Petition was not filed with sufficient alacrity and the landlord was able to obtain possession of the school building while department was still making arrangements for filing the Writ Petition.

2. We have seen the order of the Service Tribunal passed on appeal which unfortunately is‑not at all enlightening.

3. The appellant had taken mainly two objections to the order of the Director of Public Instructions namely that whereas in the inquiry report, the Enquiry Officer had found that there was no evidence to establish that the appellant was guilty of collecting unauthorised amounts from various schools and not providing proper details of its expenditure and found him guilty only on the other charge of showing negligence in the performance of his duties (as a result of which, the school building had to be vacated). However the Authority acting on the finding of the Authorised Officer had found the appellant guilty of misappropriating Rs.4,250 but not recorded any finding that he was negligent in the performance of his duties resulting in losing possession of the school building. Before the Service Tribunal it was submitted by the appellant that there was absolutely no evidence to establish misappropriation by him of the amount of Rs.4,250 and the Enquiry officer had, therefore, exonerated him of that charge but had found him guilty only of negligence in the performance of his duties. But the Authority, who had imposed the punishment on removal from service had not endorsed the finding with regards to negligence in the performance of his duties but found him guilty of the charge of misappropriation of the amount on which charge the Enquiry Officer had exonerated him. The contention before the Service Tribunal was that in so far as the last mentioned charge was concerned there was no evidence on the record (as was held by the learned Enquiry Officer). However, the Punjab Service Tribunal did not advert to this aspect of the case and did not apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. After hearing the appellant and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate for the respondents, we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that there was no evidence on the record to establish the charge of misappropriation of Rs.4,

250. We are also of the opinion that there was no concrete evidence to establish the negligence of the appellant in the pursuing of the Writ Petition to be filed in the High Court. It was probably for that reason that the Authorised Officer/Authority did not endorse the finding of the Enquiry Officer on this count.

5. The result is that this appeal is allowed. The order of the Director, Public Instructions dated 30‑7‑1988 ordering the compulsory retirement of the appellant and imposing the penalty of Rs.4,250 is set‑aside. The appellant shall accordingly be reinstated in service with all back benefits. A.A./K‑233/S. Appeal accepted.