1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Faiz Bakhsh, ex‑Senior Clerk‑cum‑Cashier, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned order dated 7‑3‑1988 and 18‑6‑1988, passed by the Respondents. The appellant has impleaded Dr. Gulsher Khan, Authority, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, Dr. Mohammad Zubair, Authorised Officer, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, Dr. Abdul Haq Nizami, Inquiry Officer, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur and Dr. Mehmudul Hassan Oureshi, Medical Superintendent and Appellate Authority, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, as respondents. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be reinstated in service.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Senior Clerk‑cum‑Cashier; B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, during the period 1981‑83, did not deposit the amount in Government Treasury received from:‑ (1) Affia Godfray Rs.10,000 (2) Miss Nusrat Shcheen Rs. 3,390 (3) Mrs. Shamim Khalid Rs.10,000 The appellant did not hand over the stock register of receipt books for the year, 1980 to 10‑4‑1984, when he was promoted and transferred as Accountant/Cashier, General Nursing Training School, B.V.Hospital, Bahawalpur. The appellant was proceeded under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&‑D) Rules, 1975. The Respondent No.1 after finding him guilty of the charges levelled against him imposed major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 7‑ ‑1988. On appeal the Respondent No.4 keeping in view the long service of the appellant converted the penalty of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement. Hence this appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney at length and perused the record with the assistance of the Departmental representative with care.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is a case of no evidence as such the impugned orders passed by the respondents may be set aside. Conversely the learned District Attorney vehemently contested the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are fully justified, well considered and may be allowed to stand.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that it is established from the record that it is a case of no evidence as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is hardly any proof of whatsoever that the appellant committed alleged offence of embezzlement and removal of stock register/receipt books. I am further strengthened in my view that the Department has failed to produce any material evidence in support of the charges so levelled against the appellant. The complainant as well as the Staff Nurses who were star witnesses of the case have not been examined. On careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 find that the impugned orders are not warranted by law and cannot be allowed to sustain.

6. In the light of the above discussion, I accept the appeal set aside the impugned orders. The appellant is reinstated in service from the date he was so retired. The period during which he remained out of service shall be treated as leave without pay. There is no order as to costs. M.Y.H./285/Sr.P Appeal allowed.