1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).‑‑‑The facts leading to this appeal are that, some (empty) Dak bags were delivered on 12‑5‑1993, under Bag Slip No. 2 at Rahmanpura Post Office, where the appellant was working as Postmaster. It is stated that he received the bags, acknowledged them, and wrote a number of bags i.e. 8/C so received on the very slip.

2. It is further submitted that the Superintendent, Post Office, District Lahore (South) vide letter dated 28‑8‑1993 addressed to appellant, had alleged that under Slip No. 2 eighteen bags were despatched, however, he had acknowledged only eight bags. As such it involved a loss of ten bags, for which the appellant was considered responsible. The appellant replied this letter vide letter dated 4‑9‑1993 stating therein that he was supplied eight bags which had been duly acknowledged.

3. However the Superintendent issued the appellant a memo dated 27?2‑1994 ordering therein to deposit a sum of Rs.660 as the cost of the alleged lost ten bags. For this it was alleged that the appellant was coerced and under duress he paid the amount on 10‑5‑1994.

4. Thereafter, the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet dated 4?9‑1994 on the ground of inefficiency and misconduct and asked to show cause, why a major penalty should not be imposed upon.

5. The appellant submitted the reply to this show‑cause notice explaining his position therein. However, according to appellant without initiating a regular enquiry as prescribed under the law, the Superintendent ordered his punishment of "stoppage of increments for two years without future effect".

6. The appellant submitted a departmental appeal to the next higher authority which was rejected vide orders dated 15‑7‑1995, which he received on 27‑7‑1995. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that he was denied the proper opportunity to defend himself. He argued that the Superintendent was the competent Authority in the matter and himself forced the appellant to pay the cost of lost bags without proving the allegation against him and then the same Superintendent issued the charge‑sheet to the appellant. He vehemently contended that after issuance of the charge‑sheet, a regular inquiry should have been held as prescribed under the law. However, nothing was done. He stated at the bar, that without enquiry and without allowing the appellant to produce evidence in his support and without establishing the charges, the same Superintendent, acting unauthorisedly, as Authorised Officer passed the impugned order of punishment against the appellant. Although the cost of bags in question having been received from the appellant, under the rules there was no justification for imposing another penalty of stoppage of increments on him.

8. He contended that under rule 4 there is no scope for another penalty. Two penalties as such were unjustified.

9. He further pleaded that the Deputy Postmaster‑General, Lahore Postal Services, unauthorisedly acting as an appellate authority rejected the departmental appeal of the appellant. As such to him both the impugned orders passed by incompetent and unauthorised persons were void and ab initio.

10. The comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been contended that as per explanation of the appellant, 8/C bags were supplied to him instead of 18/C, under bag Slip No. 2, dated 11‑5‑1993, but the Office supplying the bags refuted the statement of the appellant, and supplied the Photostat copy of the original bag Slip No. 2, dated 11‑5‑1993. The examination of both the photocopies (one supplied by the appellant and the other by the Bag Sub‑Depot Sorting and Air Division) showed that the appellant had forged the entry on the Bag Slip No. 2, dated 11‑5‑1993 on signing over the digit 18 ' C' and writing 8 ' C' separately to conceal the facts.

11. The appellant himself promised to deposit the cost of the lost bags. It has, therefore, been refuted, if he was pressurised to deposit the cost of lost bags.

12. It was also refuted, if the appellant was not provided ample opportunity to defend himself. In fact, it is explained, he was awarded full opportunity to defend himself and was also given two personal hearings dated 21‑4‑1994 and 1‑10‑1994. The appellant in his statement-dated 1‑10‑1994 recorded during personal hearing had admitted his fault, attributing it to that of rush of work. 13 As regards, the learned counsel for the appellant's stand that after serving him with the charge‑sheet, a regular inquiry should have been conducted under the law. It has been contended vide comments that the Competent Authority after thorough examination of the report of Superintendent and preliminary inquiry report did not consider it necessary to hold further inquiry in the case. Since, the allegation against the appellant had been proved ab initio and the cost of the lost bags deposited, hence the punishment order dated 22‑11‑1994 served upon the facts, issued.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant's view that under rule 4, only one punishment can be awarded, and that there is no scope for another penalty, has also been rebutted by the respondents vide comments so filed. It has been explained that the amount of Rs.660 was recovered from the appellant as a loss of lost ten bags, while he was awarded the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years without future effect for forging the official documents i.e. the Bag Slip No. 2, dated 11‑5‑1993. As such two penalties imposed upon the appellant were not due to same cause.

15. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the record before us. The perusal of the record reveals that under Bag Slip No.2, dated 11‑5‑1993 18/C Bags were sent to Rahmanpura Post Office by B.S.D., Lahore M.S.O. The appellant while working as Postmaster Rehmanpura, Post office on 12‑5‑1993 acknowledged 8/C bags signing on the digit 18 ?C? . He also wrote 8/C bags separately to conceal the facts due to which the Government had to sustain a loss of 10 'C' bags, therefore, was rightly charge‑sheeted which in fact was the show‑cause notice under E&D Rules, 1973 for misconduct and inefficiency. Since, allegation against the appellant had already been established, as he deposited the cost of lost 10 bags, and had also admitted his fault due to rush of work, as such there was no need to call for regular enquiry.

16. As he admitted his fault to have lost 10 bags due to whatever reason, he therefore, was to pay the cost of these lost 10 bags, which he actually paid. He was penalized for involving himself in forging the official documents i.e, the Bags Slip No. 2, dated 11‑5‑1993 by signing over the digits 18/C and writing 8/C separately to conceal the facts. These are two penalties for separate reasons. They cannot be said to have been due to the same cause.?????

17. After examining all aspects of the case, we come to the conclusion that the appellant has faulted and it is irrefutable and has, therefore, made a loss caused to the Government, by paying the cost of the lost 10 bags. He seems to have argued only on the point of personal prestige. He stated that he did not receive 18/C but only

8. It was his first fault. To justify it he forged the official documents by‑re‑writing to do away with the proof, little realising that this would involve him in a foul action. This was his second fault. Had he admitted at the initial stage, which he eventually did, probably he would have prevented himself from the second fault. The things would have been settled with the deposition of the cost of lost 10 bags. However, we feel that appellant has suffered sufficiently. He has made a loss due to the Government, even otherwise this loss though principally not desirable, was not much. For forging the official documents, his increments have been stopped for two years. This would yet aid to his recurring loss. The appellant is a low‑paid employee, any future financial loss would cause hardships to his family. We, therefore, taking the lenient view, purely on humanitarian grounds besides his past record, being clear, modify the impugned order stopping his increments for two years without cumulative effect, to "Censure" with no order as to costs. Parties be informed. H.B.T./17/Sr.F ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.