2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. Mr. Ikram Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia contended that the Tribunal has decided the appeal on surmises anvil conjectures rather than on the evidence on record; that respondent No. 1 was, custodian of the U.B.L. funds and he had no right or authority to misuse public money for personal benefit; and that he had not only failed to submit a reply to the charge‑sheet duly served upon him but also intentionally avoided to face the inquiry proceedings against him. Learned counsel has relied on WAPDA v. Abdul Waheed (2002 SCMR. 53).

4. Conversely, Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, strongly controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the Tribunal, after carefully examining the material available, has passed the impugned judgment with sound and cogent reasons, which is entirety based on the law laid down by this Court and the same may, be maintained.

5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the material available on record. The Court enquired from the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether regular audit of the Bank was conducted, as required under the rules, his reply was in affirmative. On another question he admitted that the advance drawn by respondent No. 1 was sanctioned by the competent Authority, but the learned counsel pointed out that he deposited the amount beyond the prescribed period, which has wrongly been condoned by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment. The other amount i.e. Rs.898 pertains to petty stationery items, Rs.3.939 belongs to light refreshment/entertainment expenses, Rs.75,955 relate to payment of special duty, Rs.32,900 to casual labour. The Tribunal has compared all these figures and found that average of these items of expenditure was reasonable and it rightly did not interfere. The plea of the respondent is that he took active part in the union activities on his promotion as Officer and due to that reason he was dismissed from service. In the case- law cited hereinabove by the learned counsel for the appellants charge of corruption/misappropriation was proved against the civil servant; whereas in the case in hand the aforesaid charge was not proved against respondent No. 1 and the Bank also allowed to refund the amount drawn by him and no other action was taken against him. So far the order of the Tribunal that respondent No. 1 has been exonerated from the charges is concerned, in our considered view, the 'Tribunal has not considered the provision of United Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). It would be advantageous to refer here its rule 37, which reads as under:‑‑ "

37. Punishment. ‑‑‑Without prejudice to the other provisions contained in these rules where an employee who commits breach of the regulations of the Bank or of discipline or contravenes instructions/orders issued to him in connection with his official work or who displays negligence, inefficiency, or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Bank or is guilty of any other act of misconduct or insubordination the competent Authority may impose on him one or more of the following penalties:‑‑ (a) reprimand; (b) postponement or stoppage of increment or promotion; (c) forfeiture of pay for any period of unauthorized absence from duty; (d) recovery from pay of the whole or part of arty pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the employee; (e) degradation to a lower stage of pay in his grade or to a lower grade; (f) compulsory retirement from service; (g) removal from service which does not disqualify for future ' employment or calls upon an employee to resign from was service: and (h) dismissal which will involve permanent disqualification for future employment in the Bank."

6. Since it is proved through record that the respondent refunded the amount very late and he has violated the Rules of the Bank; as such, keeping in view the above provisions, we are of the considered opinion that total exoneration of the respondent from charge was uncalled for. However, the dismissal from service in our opinion is also not warranted.

7. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we partly allow this appeal and award penalty of postponement of promotion of respondent No. 1 for a period of three years from the date of his reinstatement in service. He is also not entitled to the back‑benefits and the intervening period may be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. M.B.A./P‑93/S Appeal partly allowed.