1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet and statement of allegations on 16th November, 1974, by the Government. The appellant submitted his detailed reply on 14th December, 1974, and in that matter an enquiry was held by Ch. Muhammad Sharif, O. S. D.‑II (Enquiries) Services, General Administrator and Information Department, Lahore, who although exonerating the appellant from all the salient charges, yet held that as the payment was made on account of the letter so signed by him, therefore, he was in a way guilty of negligence. The competent authority, after looking into the enquiry, awarded a penalty of Censure to the appellant, vide order dated 2nd March, 1981. However, the appellant filed a review petition against the imposition of such penalty of Censure, but the same was considered and rejected by the Government, vide its order dated 17th February, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assis tance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the charges so levelled against the appellant were that of over‑payment of Rs. 5,808 and Rs. 17,519, were affected due to negligence of the appellant who had signed a letter, which was addressed to the Superintending Engineer con cerned, for asking him to make such payments. Learned counsel for the appellant, while elaborating the factual state of affairs has submitted that with, regard to the payment of Rs. 5,808, the Enquiry Officer had himself appellant in this respect by holding that the payment was made under the orders of the Superintending Engineer, who had actually orders after looking into the entire case himself. With regard to second payment, it has been vehemently argued that the was not made due to any negligence of the appellant but when the claim of bill of Rs. 17,519 was put up to him by the Divisional with the regular payment order he did not sign the same and returned the case with a detailed objection. However, this bill was passed by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan, successor of the appellant.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has contested the claim of the appellant and has submitted that whatever may be the situation, he was responsible for forwarding the case of contractor with his recommendation, therefore, Enquiry Officer was fully justified to hold him guilty of this charge.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have carefully perused the Inquiry Report in this respect as well as taken into consideration the stand taken by the appellant through his learned counsel, and for this reasons, we will refer certain extracts from the Inquiry Report itself.

8. The Enquiry Officer has mentioned in his report in para. 23 (ii) of the Inquiry Report as under :‑

"The bona fide of Mr. Rauf Ahmad is further corroborated by the fact that when the final claimed bill of Rs. 17,519 was put up to him by the Divisional Accountant with the regular payment order he did not sign the same and returned the case with a detailed objection." Similarly while going through the said report, we find that the Enquiry Officer at pages 15 and 16, of the Inquiry Report has held as under :‑‑ "I am therefore, of the opinion that Mr. Rauf Ahmad is guilty of carelessness in signing the letter but he is not a party in the fraud and he had no male fide intentions in this respect. In actual fact, his office was in league with the contractor and they played a mischief on him and got the letter signed by giving him some wrong impression or in routine." With these two observations in mind, we have verified from the record that the payment was made on the detailed note of the office dated 21st September, 1959, by the Superintending Engineer himself. In view of the above the conclusion drawn in paras. 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was guilty of negligence, cannot be accepted. The Enquiry Officer was positive, that all what had been done. had happened due to collusion of the contractor with the office of the appellant and they mislead the appellant in signing of the letter. 1f this letter dated 7th September, 1959, would have been the main cause of over payment to the contractor, then of course, we would have really agreed with the Enquiry Officer's observation that the appellant was guilty of negligence. The perusal of the documents and the record has revealed that in fact, as stated in the earlier part of our judgment, the Superintending Engineer, examined the detailed note so put up to him and went into the history of the case and sanctioned the amount with conscious mind as the same was according to the entries, existing in the Measurement Book for the additional work. Keeping this fact in view, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was not at fault of any negligence, at any time, for the said two payments so made to the contractors under the conscious orders of the Superintending Engineer.

9. As regards Bill for Rs. 5,808 it has been alleged that the bill was for `Ice Cutting' whereas there was no record entry for "Ice Cutting" and work done at site was of "Frost Cutting". We do not see any point in it. The main question is whether the work was performed at site and whether the rate charged was in accordance with the one sanctioned by the Superin tending Engineer concerned. These two points are not disputed. Therefore. mere use of different terminology viz. "Ice" instead of "Frost" was immaterial. We are fully satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that under the departmental rules, it was the responsibility of Divisional Accountant to ensure that bill was in accor dance with the sanction.

10. The result is, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the minor penalty of censure, so mentioned in the A. C. R., be removed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.