2004 PLP 950 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service and recovery of amount‑‑ Respondent civil servant was charge‑sheeted for shortage of amount in treasury and inquiry was conducted, but in inquiry report respondent was not clearly implicated in all defalcations‑‑‑Despite that petitioner Authority after considering all material available on record dismissed respondent from service and also passed order for recovery of the amount‑‑‑Service Tribunal through its order modified penalty and converted penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement and order recovering amount was set aside‑‑‑Petitioner Authority had filed petition for leave to appeal against judgment of Service Tribunal‑‑ During course of inquiry respondent was not found fully responsible for shortage of amount and he was simply found negligent, in performing his duties and whole blame for alleged defalcation. prima facie, lay upon other persons‑‑‑No question of law of general public importance as contemplated under Art. 212(3) of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) being involved in the case petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Nasir Saeed Sh. Standing Counsel for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th May, 2003. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 21‑3‑2002 whereby the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), partly accepted the appeal of the respondent by converting his penalty, of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. The recovery of Rs.6,92,969.66 against him was also set aside. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent was earlier charge‑sheeted on 28‑12‑1996 for the shortage of Rs.6,92,969.66 in the Treasury. However, this charge‑sheet was subsequently quashed due to the change of statutory rules vide letter dated 7‑11‑1998. He was again charge‑sheeted on 12‑11‑1998. He submitted his reply and dented all the charges. An enquiry was conducted and a reading of the enquiry report demonstrates that he was not clearly implied in all the defalcations. The competent authority after considering al the material available on record through an order dated 20‑7‑2000 dismissed the respondent from service and also passed an order for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. After availing the departmental remedies, the respondent approached the Tribunal against the aforesaid order of his dismissal from services. The learned Tribunal through its judgment dated 27‑3‑2002 passed an order modifying his penalty as stated in the opening paragraph. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and have gone through the, entire material placed on record with his assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that during the course of enquiry the respondent was not found fully responsible for the shortage of the above amount. The tenor of the enquiry report and the documents appended with this petition reflect that he was negligent in the performance of his duties. The whole blame for this defalcation, prima facie, lay upon Malik Muhammad Ayaz, the then Postmaster General, who secured all the above amount. In this regard reference is made to the Minutes of the meeting dated 27‑2‑1996 whereby said Malik Muhammad Ayaz participated in the above meeting and undertook to sort out the matter and arrange for regular sanction of the above shortage a ter holding a meeting with the officers of the concerned Circle. According to the impugned judgment his case is under investigation before the N.A.B. authorities. The plea of the learned Standing Counsel that the respondent deposited Rs.1.00,000 would not advance the case of the petitioners as it is reflected from the record that the said amount was contributed by all the employees .through G.P. Fund at the asking of the then Chief Postmaster. Mr. Khatri, who promised that the same would be returned to them after one month. Even otherwise, no question of law of general public importance as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is involved in this case. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the instant petition being without any merit is dismissed and leave declined. H.B.T./D-3/S Petition dismissed.