1991PLC(C (PLP)

(1) No separate charge had been levelled against (one of) the co-accused and that legally a separate show-cause notice should have been issued to him containing clear and well-defined charges. (2) Maintenance and distribution of stationery was actually the sole responsibility of the Storekeeper, Mehbub Alam.

8. If the Commissioner Lahore's argument is accepted as valid that a separate charge should have been levelled and a separate show-cause notice should have been served on Khurshid Ahmed containing "clear and well-defined charges" the same Argument should then ipso facto be applicable in the case of the other two accessed viz. Qasim Ali Shah and Mehbub Alam as well. The Commissioner Lahore should on that basis have accepted the appeal of Mehbub Alam also because in his case too no separate charge was levelled against him and no separate show-cause notice containing clear and well-defined charges was served on him. It is, therefore, a clear case of discrimination against Mehbub Alam. Although the same basis was available for accepting the appeal in the case of Khurshid Ahmed yet the Commissioner Lahore chose not to extend its protection to the former while accepting the tatter's appeal and instead accepted it on a different ground.

9. As regards the contention of the other co-accused Qasim Ali Shah, that according to the Duty Roster the Senior Clerk (Khurshid Ahmed) who was working as Purchase Clerk also and who was responsible for all contingencies i.e. Contingent Cash Books purchase etc. and for checking the rates, quality and quantity of stores and the Junior Clerk Mehbub Alam (appellant) who was responsible for the stores in his capacity as Storekeeper, were actually responsible for any discrepancy, and misappropriation of stationery, a reference to the Duty Roster has become necessary of which a copy has been made available to the Tribunal. According to this Duty Roster the following duties, among others, had been assigned to the District Nazir, Assistant District Nazir and the Storekeeper: District Nazir: (1) Maintenance of all safe deposits and confiscated arms and ammunitions. (2) Drawing and disbursing of all cash. (3) Office correspondence of branches. (4) Maintenance and supply of material to all Courts in the district as well as in the tehsil offices. (5) Maintenance of Cash Book. (6) Overall incharge of the branch. Assistant District Nazir. (1) Supply of material to officers and officials. (2) Maintenance of store register. (3) Maintenance of confiscated articles register. Contingency Clerk (Storekeeper). (1) To deal with the contingency. (2) Maintenance of contingency record uptodate. (3) Maintenance of contingency vouchers. (4) Preparation and consolidation of contingent bills.

10. The duties assigned to the three officials as detailed above make it abundantly clear that matters in the branch were hang looked after by the three officials jointly and no one of them could be singled out for being solely responsible, especially in the case of the maintenance and distribution of stationery articles. While the District Nazir is responsible for the maintenance and supply of material to all District/Tehsil Courts, the Assistant District Nazir is also responsible for the supply of material to officers. Similarly, the Contingency Clerk is responsible for the maintenance of contingency vouchers and preparation and consolidation of contingent bills of articles, which necessarily include stationery items. It is, therefore, not factually correct to say that the maintenance and distribution of stationery was "actually the rcponsibility of the Storekeepers". In any event, if that was the case then, as observed by the Commissioner Lahore himself, separate charges should have been framed against the three accused ant, show-cause notices should also have been served on them separately.

11. Thus on the analogy of the orders passed in appeal by the Commissioner Lahore in the cases of the co-accused Qasim Ali Shah and Khurshid Ahmed the appeal filed by the appellant Mehbub Alam before this Tribunal is accepted. The impugned orders dated 5-7-1988 and 22-11-1988 passed by the respondents are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with effect from the date he was removed from service. The competent authority shall determine the intervening period between the date from which the appellant was removed from service and the date from which he is reinstated, for purposes of pay etc. which should be in accord with the determination made in the cases of Qasim Ali Shah I and Khurshid Ahmed, There are no orders as to costs.

12. While still on the subject of reinstatement mention may be made of a lacuna in the Commissioner Lahore's above orders both announced on 27-6-1989 in Appeal No.35 dated 4-8-1988 and No.37, dated 9-8-1988 filed before him by Khurshid Ahmed and Qasim Ali Shah respectively in which the two appellants were reinstated in service retrospectively with effect from 2-6-1988 i.e. w.e.f the date of their suspension. An official if placed under suspension still remains very much in service and, therefore, reinstatement w.e.f the date of suspension in these two cases was uncalled for. Both of them should have been reinstated with effect from the date from which they were retired compulsorily i.e. w.e.f. 5-7-1988 by the Deputy Commissioner, Okara. The above two orders passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Lahore, therefore, need to be amended accordingly. As regards the period of suspension, separate orders should be issued, if not issued already, by the competent authority after determining the quantum of pay and allowances to be granted to the two officials in the light of the facts in each case. Similar orders should also be issued in respect of Mehbub Alam. M.Y.H./332/Sr.P Appeal allowed.