2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 26-10-1995, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.307(R) of 1995.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Clerk in the Treasury 'Branch of Islamabad G.P.O., when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by serving on him show-cause notice dated 17-1-1995 on the ground that he allegedly collected the postage stamps and stationery (envelopes) amounting to Rs.1,49,500 from the Zonal Stamps Store, Rawalpindi, vide invoice No.1, dated 11-7-1994, but accounted for the same on 30-7-1994. The other allegation mentioned in the show-cause notice was that Postal Stamps for Rs.2,75,000 were drawn from Zonal Stamp Store, Rawalpindi, but were taken into account on 29-6-1994. The appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice submitted that the irregularity took place due to rush of work and there was no mala tide intention. The competent Authority did not accept the reply of the appellant as plausible, and vide order dated 30-3-1995 imposed upon him the penalty of compulsory retirement. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed departmental appeal to the Chief Postmaster, Islamabad G.P.O., on 10-4-1995, but the same was turned down vide order dated 9-7-1995. Thereafter, he filed appeal before the Tribunal, which too was dismissed vide impugned judgment.

3. Mr. M. Sadiq Warraich, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the imposition of major penalty upon the appellant without holding regular inquiry is not in accordance with law; that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the evidence about the allegations made by the respondents; that the appellant had pleaded mistake on account of rush of work and that the temporary misappropriation of the amount was not with bad intention; that for the alleged misappropriation the major penalty of compulsory retirement is a very harsh punishment.

4. On the other hand, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Dy.A.-G. controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the appeal is devoid of force, which may be dismissed.

5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and minutely scanned the record. The explanation given by the appellant clearly shows that he deposited the cash in the treasury very late in violation of the Government rules/instructions. We have also perused his statement, which is available at page 26 of the paper book, and its relevant portion reads as under: Further, we have perused the appellant's reply to the show-cause, which is available at page.30 of the paper book, and its relevant portion reads as under: . . . . . .. On the days, the incident took place, being overworked I failed to account for said invoices. For the very reason I could not count the balance in loud. Besides on the following days I too happen to bring more stamps from the said Zonal Office. I also happen to other Head offices to supply the stamps and stationery as demanded for by them. That a perusal of the stock register will reveal that the daily balance of stamps and stationery always exceeded over and above 60,00,000 or 70,00,

000. In such a state of affairs it was not possible for a single hand to count them daily physically."

6. In view of the overwhelming evidence against the appellant and his own admission, the contention of learned counsel that regular inquiry, as provided under rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, was not conducted, in any case, is not tenable. The learned Tribunal had considered the available material very carefully, and the impugned judgment is based on the valid, sound reasons, and the law laid I down by this Court. Furthermore, we find that the competent Authority has heady taken a lenient view in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, for which the appellant should be thankful to the respondents.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view, that this appeal is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs: Q. M. H. /M. A. K./S-242/S Appeal dismissed.