2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

K.B. ABID (MEMBER-II).

The appellant Muhammad Sabir Butt was served the show-cause notice regarding , the embezzlement of Rs.2,65,630 pertaining to G.P. Fund and other dues of the Government employees. After observing the codal formalities prescribed under R.S.O.-2000, the appellant vide order, dated 27-5-2006 was awarded the penalty for recovery of amount of Rs,2,74,993 along with dismissal from service.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of departmental authorities the service appeal had been filed in P.S.T. under section 4 of P.S.T.' Act, 1974.

3. After hearing the parties, the judgment was passed on 13-2-2007 with the direction to respondents to call the appellant and give him the opportunity to produce evidence and thereafter pass well-reasoned order by mentioning the share of responsibility/misconduct committed by each official. The main evidence of Muhammad Akram Dafedar would also be cross-examined in the presence of appellants. The appellate Authority was required to completely reconcile the matter. As per directions of this Court, the Chief Engineer Irrigation Zone Multan had called the appellant and afforded him the opportunity of personal hearing. By taking, in view all facts and record, the orders were passed by the Appellate Authority that the appellant is involved in embezzlement of Rs:2,74,

993. The appellant had paid back Rs.2,45,446 to the affectees and he was directed to pay balance of Rs.29,

547. The orders of dismissal from service of the appellant was maintained.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the departmental authorities have not strictly followed the directions of P.S.T. and orders have been passed without any reasons and without consideration of the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the additional charges/allegations have been taken into account which were not the part of the show-cause notice served upon the appellant. In this way, the appellant has been condemned unheard. The impugned orders passed by the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Multan Zone are contradictory. The appellant had shown payment vouchers. The unaccounted amounts have been included at later stage especially when these were not the subject-matter of allegations.

5. Arguments of the counsel heard, record perused. The plea of the counsel for the appellant is correct that the appellant has been awarded the penalty of recovery of those amounts which were not part of the charges. In the original charge-sheet and statements of allegations, the amount of Rs.2,65,630 was indicated and now in present penalty orders, the amount has been enhanced to Rs.2,74,

993. Inclusion of additional amount is not justified. In case there was additional amount and not included in the original charge-sheet, those should have been excluded and separate charges framed against the appellant. The net amount under dispute is still Rs.2,65,

630. The D.R. present in the Tribunal proceedings has confirmed that amount of Rs.2,53,778 has already been paid by the appellant to concerned employees. The other amount of Rs.11,272 has been placed under the share of responsibility of other two officials namely Muhammad Anwar Ex-Record Keeper and Muhammad Yasin Ex-Accounts Clerk. The only balance amount of Rs.580 have equally to be shared in between Muhammad Anwar and appellant. The net amount payable by the appellant is Rs.290. It shall be recovered from his outstanding dues. The detail examination of case reveals that the appellant had withheld the dues of various officials and Government money by way of temporary embezzlement. He had at later stage recouped the loss by making payment to the concerned officials. The temporary embezzlement is proved from the record. The penalty of dismissal from service is too harsh and it is converted into withholding of one increment for the period of three years. With these orders. The appeal is disposed of. H.B.T./4/PST Order accordingly.