2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 27-6-2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.1858 of 2002.

2. The petitioner while posted as an Accounts Clerk in Tube-well Operations Division, Sheikhupura, of the Irrigation Department was proceeded against by the Departmental Authorities along with two other employees on the allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of huge amount of Rs.15,10,521 being the salary of the staff. He was issued a show-cause notice dated 5-4-1995 which was duly replied by him. The Superintending Engineer, SCARP-IV-Circle, Lahore, being the competent Authority, by order dated 6-4-2002, imposed the penalty of reduction in rank and recovery of Rs.2,18,521 upon the petitioner. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was not responded to. Therefore, he filed Appeal No.1858 of 2002 which was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 27-6-2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that a criminal case had also been registered against the petitioner on the same charges in which he was acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. It was next contended that holding of a regular inquiry through an Inquiry Officer was necessary. The learned counsel referred to the P.W.D. Code in support of his content that all payments of bills involving an amount exceeding Rs.50,000 were required to be received by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer from the Bank. Therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible for receiving the payment of .huge amount from the Bank and misappropriation thereof. The recovery of amount of Rs.12,92,000 by the police from the petitioner was a fake exercise.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the available record. We find that an amount of Rs.12,92,000 was recovered from the petitioner out of the embezzled amount of Rs.15,10,

521. The Tribunal observed that sufficient documentary evidence being available on record, the regular inquiry was validly dispensed with. The petitioner being Accounts Clerk/Cashier was found to have drawn the huge amount of Rs.15,10,521 from the National Bank of Pakistan which he kept in the chest in violation of the security rules: The petitioner was afforded opportunity to defend, himself before the Inquiry Committee but he absconded. It is now well-settled that the departmental as well as criminal proceedings can be taken against a delinquent official simultaneously and independently of each other. See the case of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore v. Anees-ur-Rehman PLD 1985 SC

134. It does not appeal to reason that recovery of huge amount of Rs.12,92,000 could have been planted against the petitioner by the police. The Departmental Authorities have already dealt the petitioner quite leniently. In our view, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. M.H./A-142/S Leave refused.