1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. Mr. Ghulam Jan Niazi, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued this appeal at length. It is argued that show‑cause notice was not supplied to the appellant, personal hearing was not afforded and confessional statement was forcibly taken from the appellant with mala fide intention. He also argued that once proceedings were started under Rule 6 of the E&.D Rules, resort to Rule 5 could not be taken. It is also argued that under the financial rules the appellant was not responsible for handling the cash, therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal.

3. Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed, Section Officer, Ministry of Interior with Lt: Col. Kanwal Issacs submitted that under Rule 5 of the E&D Rules proceedings were taken against the appellant and he was issued a show‑cause notice to which he replied and submitted that he may be excused. It is argued that Inquiry Committee was appointed and the appellant gave statement before the Committee and admitted his guilt. As such, there was no need for holding regular departmental inquiry since the charge of embezzlement was proved.

4. The comments have been filed by the department alongwith the documents and it appears that a show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant on 13th July, 1992 and it reads as under: 'To Head Clerk Chamir Khan, 3 Wing Tochi Scouts: Subject: Show‑cause notice: (1) were performing the duties as Head Clerk with 3 Wing Tochi Scouts at Boya. Requisition bearing No. 6002/19/X/3W, dated 20th May, 1992 for Rs.35,500 was forwarded to HQ Tochi Scouts for drawal of IHM Credit of pers. The pers mentioned in the requisition were not proceeding on retirement/discharge. G.P. Fund deduction for Rs.4,055 was made from 108 pers, who were not allotted G.P. Fund A/C Nos. by AGPR, Peshawar. Rs.3,520 were recovered as premium of 8 pensioners and distributed among you and JC Nazir Khan and Pay Hav. Ahmad Rasool. (2) Explain reasons in detail as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for your above offences under Government Servant Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 1973. (3) Your explanation should reach this office by 20th July, 1992." The appellant submitted his reply dated 13‑7‑1992 but he has now disowned his signatures. The Inquiry Committee consisting of four members, recorded his statement and as many as 13 questions were put by the Committee, and replies have been recorded and statement is signed by all four officers. The contention of the appellant is that all the documents are forged and he had not given such statement before the Inquiry Committee, nor any questions were put by the members of the Committee, and these documents have been fabricated. We have perused the statement of the appellant which he signed and his plea is falsified by his own conduct and reference is made to sub‑paras. (5) and (6) of paragraph 5 of the departmental appeal dated 15‑10‑1992, and are reproduced below: - The (sic) clearly told me that if I don't agree to sign then they will shoot me and the reasons for shooting me will be declared that he was crossing the border for escaping himself. (6) So, with the fear of my life, I signed an statement, ‑and its contents were not read by me." From the documents produced before us, it is clear that the appellant with the connivance of his colleagues had played a fraud and the charge as per his own statement and those of the co‑accused and other witnesses, was proved and we can hardly believe the contention of the appellant that the documents are fabricated and forged by four responsible officers and the notice and reply thereto submitted by the appellant, and his signatures thereon, are fictitious. The learned counsel for the appellant has not argued on the merits of the case except stated above and that under financial rules, there was no liability which could be fixed on the appellant. Whether the appellant was responsible therefore or not, but the fact remains that he had prepared the requisition for withdrawal of payment and he was the main culprit in this fraud and the technical objections raised by the appellant in the matters of misappropriation/embezzlement of Government money, cannot sustain, when there is clear admission on the part of the appellant and that he has not pacifically alleged any mala fide against the officers. As regards his contention hat proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Rule 6 and hereafter Rule 5, i.e. the summary procedure was adopted. In this case, Board f Inquiry was constituted to probe into the allegations levelled against the appellant and others, in which the appellant duly participated, and it was a fact -finding inquiry, and thereafter proceedings were taken under Rule 5 of the Government Servant Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 1973 by serving on the appellant a show‑cause notice and thereafter final order of dismissal was passed. There is no illegality in the proceedings as on the charge of corruption, summary procedure can be adopted by the departmental authority and this, view is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1989 SCMR 316.

5. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in appeal and is dismissed. H.B.T./989/ Sr.F Appeal dismissed.