2000 PLP 1274 (SCMR)

SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order dated 11-3-1998 delivered by the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner. against his dismissal from service was rejected.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition are that the petitioner was working as Copyist in the Copy Branch in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Jhang. A complaint was received by the District and Sessions Judge, Jhang against the malpractices in the Copying Branch. The District arid Sessions Judge deputed an Additional District and Sessions Judge to check the record of the Copying Agency from August, 1989 to October 1990. Accordingly, a probe was made and it was found that the Government revenue had been embezzled and on 6-5-1990 a report to that effect. was sent to the District and Sessions Judge. After the receipt of the said report, Mian Abdul Latif, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhang was appointed as an authorized officer to proceed in the matter. The charge-sheet was thus served upon the petitioner and Mr. Sajjad Ahmed Chawan, Civil Judge was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. Vide his report dated 10-9-1990 the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that all the five charges against the petitioner stood proved and it was further concluded that the petitioner and 4 others were responsible for forgery and embezzlement at a large scale. The authorized officer forwarded the recommendations and resultantly the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 1-12-1990. A departmental appal was filed by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court. The said appeal was also dismissed and thus the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal was invoked by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal, which also met the same fate vide order impugned.

3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and we have also gone through the judgments delivered by the High Court as well as the Tribunal. Before the Inquiry Officer the petitioner had defended himself by stating that he had no knowledge of the incorrect entries in the record and it was just a case of oversight. The petitioner further pleaded that he was willing to make up deficiency, if any. He denied that he had any knowledge of the use of old stamps. The Inquiry Officer after careful consideration of the defence taken by the petitioner and keeping in view all other evidence held that the petitioner in connivance with 4 others working in the office had committed forgery at a large scale and embezzled huge amount in application forms manipulating the entries in the application forms and CD.II registers and had pasted used stamps after these were removed from the old application forms on the record received in the Copying Agency. The authorized officer had also carefully probed into the matter and agreed with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. The learned High Court while hearing the departmental appeal, after careful consideration, made the following observation:-- "The appellants were working as copyist in copying agency of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Jhang. The allegation against: them was that they did not correctly calculate amount of fee payable by the applicants for supply of certified copies of judgments and decrees and also that they got pasted on the applications old and used court-fee stamps and as such caused financial loss to the Government of huge amounts. They were charge-sheeted, the inquiry was held and the charges were found to have been established. "

4. It is hard to believe that the petitioner working in the Copying Agency would not know the use of the old and crossed stamps removed from the applications received and such glaring ,fact could not have escaped his notice. The fact that he was a new entrant and had a short stay in the department would not absolve him of the responsibility. It was rightly concluded by the Tribunal that it was impossible to believe that the petitioner was residing in an island of innocence in a sea of corruption and that he was unaware of any malpractice.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition; which is hereby dismissed. and leave to appeal is refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-34/S Petition dismissed.