2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J. ‑‑‑By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above mentioned six petitions for leave to appeal as the same have arisen from one and the same judgment, dated 8‑5‑2002 of the Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal and involve identical questions of law and facts.

2. Briefly, the relevant facts are these. Sometime in the year 1994 embezzlement of prize bonds to the tune of Rs.42,23,400, which were to be destroyed, was unearthed at Quetta Branch of the State Bank of Pakistan. During the ensuing inquiry and disciplinary proceedings the then Chief Manager of the Branch, namely, Abdul Qayyum Baig as well as the petitioners, who were serving as Officers Grade‑I, Grade‑II, Deputy Treasurers and Assistant Treasures in the prize bonds section of the State Bank of Pakistan, Quetta, and a few others were dismissed from service. The appeals filed by the petitioners were, however, accepted by the Tribunal on 4‑12‑1998 and the orders of their dismissal, dated 18‑9‑1996 and 22‑4‑1997 were set aside and they were reinstated in service with direction to the respondents to hold disciplinary proceedings against them afresh. The petitions for leave to appeal arising therefrom were dismissed. Thereafter, a fresh inquiry was held, the petitioners were dismissed from service on 31‑8‑1999 and the appeals preferred by them were dismissed by the Tribunal as stated above.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the out set that the order of dismissal of the petitioners was coram non‑judice having not been signed by the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan or an officer authorized by him was further contended that copies of the report of the Inquiry Officer were not provided to the petitioners and they were also not afforded personal hearing before imposition of penalty. It was also contended that the inquiry Officer had based his findings on conjectures and surmises and the departmental appeals of the petitioners were not disposed of through a speaking order. It was next contended that the impugned order was discriminatory as several colleagues of the petitioners who were actually guilty of negligence resulting in the embezzlement of the prize bonds by the Chief Manager of the Bank were reinstated in service with minor penalties or no penalty at all. It was lastly contended that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioners was harsh.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the caveator submitted that the orders of dismissal of the petitioners were issued with the approval of the Governor State Bank of Pakistan. He pressed into service a photo‑copy of the said approval in support of his submission. He further submitted that the petitioners having issued certificates without punching the prize bonds were fully involved in the embezzlement and the penalty imposed on there could not be termed as harsh. He also submitted that, the inquiry report did not sinter from any defect and copies of the same were delivered to the petitioners.

5. Having considered the rival contentions carefully we are of the view that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. The Tribunal has examined all the issues and points involved in the case in detail and determined the same correctly and in accordance with law. The inquiry conducted against the petitioners does not suffer from any defect or infirmity. The inquiry report makes it manifest that the petitioners were instrumental in the embezzlement in question inasmuch as they were holding responsible posts at the crucial time and had issued certificates that the requisite destruction of the defective Prize Bonds had been carried out although the Prize Bonds were neither defaced nor punched or taken to the incinerator for destruction as required under the rules. There is no force in the contention that the order of dismissal of the petitioners from service was coram non judice because it is evident from the photocopy of the "Case Summary for the Governor", placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the orders of dismissal of the petitioners were issued with the approval of the Governor State Bank of Pakistan.

6. Adverting to the discrimination‑related contention we find that fresh enquiry was conducted against 21 employees, including the petitioners, of whore 4 were exonerated from the charges framed against them, the petitioners were dismissed from service for the reason that all the charges including the charge of wilful contribution in defalcation/embezzlement had been fully proved against them and minor penalties were imposed on the remaining employees. The plea of discrimination cannot be raised at all because all the employees involved are not similarly placed and penalties have been imposed keeping in view their status and role. The remaining contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid of substance. Consequently, all the petitions are dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./A‑38/SC Leave refused.