2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal was sought against the judgment dated 2-7-2002 whereby learned Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the recovery of Rs.85,703.85 being the value of the stolen medicines.

2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 23rd of September, 1993 for the theft of medicines from the store. He submitted his reply denying all the charges. An inquiry was conducted and a unanimous report was submitted on 17-11-1993 -whereby the charges against the petitioner stood proved.

3. The authorised officer after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner recommended major penalty. However, the Authority vide its order dated 24-2-1999 imposed only the penalty of recovery of Rs.85,703.85 being the value of the stolen medicine with a further direction that the same be recovered from his salary on monthly basis to the extent of 1/3rd of his salary.

4. The petitioner filed departmental appeal and after the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days approached the Tribunal through an appeal which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment.

5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for some time on 20-3-2003. After going through the documents appended with this petition we were prima facie of the view that the punishment awarded to the petitioner did not commensurate with his guilt as he was found involved fully in pilferage of the medicines through an independent Inquiry Committee. As such we issued a show-cause notice to him why his punishment be not enhanced to that of his dismissal from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepted notice and the case was adjourned enabling him to argue the same.

6. Today arguments have been heard in the presence of the petitioner at length from both sides. We have noticed that inquiry into the allegations was conducted by a committee comprising of Manager as the Chairman and two members, i.e. Account officer and a Superintendent of Audit. They gave full opportunity to the petitioner to put up his case. He was awarded full time to cross; examine the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the committee adopted a procedure of questions and answers which was not provided by any rule. It is pointed out that this was a domestic inquiry and the main purpose of the same was to provide full opportunity to the incumbent against whom inquiry was conducted. Here in this case the inquiry, was conducted by providing full opportunity to the petitioner and in order to clear some certain questions were put so as to ensure that no point was left untouched.

7. Further plea taken by the petitioner that he had already intimated the competent authority regarding the pilferage of medicines from stores does not help him. He stated to have informed the authority on 9th of September, 1993 while it has come on record that Muhammad Aslam Bhatti Drug Superintendent detected the shortage of medicines on 11th of August, 1993 whereafter physical inspection/verification was carried out and report in this regard was submitted on 29th of August, 1993 i.e. much before the alleged intimation by the petitioner. We have also noticed from the impugned judgment that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal showed his disapproval qua the lesser punishment imposed upon the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce his determination in this regard which is in the following terms: "The resume of the discussion is that the charge brought against the appellant stands fully proved. Appellant is lucky to have escaped with a penalty of mere recovery. In my mind such a person does not deserve to be retained in service, as he is not only aggrandizing himself by selling medicines in the store but depriving the poor masses of the use of medicines purchased for them by the Government".

8. It is astonishing that the authority while admitting the guilt of the petitioner retained him in the service so as to enable him to repeat his illegal activities in paying back the penalty. Even an ordinary person of normal prudent would not retain such-like person in service after he has been found implicated in the theft. There is, common complaint of corruption and teeming millions are craving even for a tablet of Disprine while the medicines from the Government hospitals and stores are being stolen and misused with impunity. It may be mentioned at this juncture that one, of the concepts of punishing an offender is to deter other mischief-mongers from committing offences in order to bring harmony and peace in, society. Courts, of law while administering justice in offences relating to individuals take into consideration reformatory concept of punishment, but in offences against society, no sympathy can be shown to wrong-doer as leniency shown means a message to the alike minds that they can also get away, if they are caught. Persons committing such offences should be snubbed at the very outset and be dealt with iron hands at appropriate time, otherwise this malady would plague the whole society.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any justification for the leniency shown by the departmental authority in awarding the punishment.

10. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused. The conduct displayed by the petitioner as custodian of public property is not such where one cart say that he deserves sympathy. The departmental authority is, therefore, directed to dismiss the petitioner from service. S.A.K./A-442/S Leave refused.