1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A.A. Muhammadally, A.A.‑G. for the Government. MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN):‑The appellant, a Property Clerk of District Court, Larkana, was proceeded against under the Efficiency and Discipline. Rules for loss of two Revolvers, two pistols and ammunition from the property room and was awarded punishment' of compulsory retirement from service by the Sessions Judge, Larkana by his order, dated 5‑6‑1980. The appellant filed a departmental appeal against the order which was rejected by the Chief Justice and the punishment was maintained under order, dated 20‑10‑1984. He has accordingly preferred this service appeal. The facts of the case are hardly disputed. It has also not been denied that the weapons disappeared from the property room during the period, when the appellant remained incharge of all the properties, as property clerk. The appellant has tried to show that as a result of transfer of Sessions Cases in bulk from the lower Courts, due to amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code, a large number of properties were received and kept in a small property room. The properties were dumped inside the room and they remained in a mess as they were not manageable. It has also been argued that during the vacations the Accountant of the District Court had to send properties in a Sessions case to the High Court and he had sent for the keys of the record room. The revolvers and other ammunition cannot however, have evaporated. They are usually kept in the special safe, in the property room alongwith ornaments and cash. It was the duty of the appellant to have gone personally to hand over properties of the Sessions cases and should not have parted with the keys. That by itself, was an act of negligence. It has been argued that the appellant had to face trial on a criminal charge before the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption but he was acquitted in that criminal case in respect of the same charge. It has, however, been rightly pointed out by the Honourable Cheif Justice of the High Court of Sind that the departmental inquiry and criminal prosecution are entirely different things and acquittal by the criminal Court cannot exonerate the appellant from the charge of negligence and inefficiency. It has also been pointed out that the loss of weapons and cartridges can lead to serious consequences and that the property clerk is under a bounden duty to take good care of such delicate properties. The loss of properties in itself would prove negligence and inefficiency, unless the appellant can affirmatively show that the loss was on account of reasons beyond his control. The learned Advocate for the appellant has in the end, pressed for lenient view in the matter of punishment. The appellant has, however, been found unfit to be retained in any responsible position in the office. We can, therefore, see no reason to interfere. In the result the service appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.E. Appeal dismissed.