2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR (MEMBER-II).

It is case of the appellant that he has been working as constable/driver in B.R.P. till 2001, while show-cause notice was issued to him, wherein allegations were levelled against him that he got issued bogus demand slips of diesel/mobil oil from one Muhammad Luqman D.S.P. by way of which the diesel and mobil oil has been misappropriated. It is his case that he has never been deputed to and permanent vehicle while from time to time he has been directed by the Wing Commander to proceed with Vehicle No.Q.A.F. 9841 on 9-3-1999, 26-7-1999 and 22-9-2000 on official duty, while entries of the same were made in Roznamcha. Further, he (the appellant) being a driver has no authority to issue or get slips of diesel/mobil oil; which is within the powers of Wing, Commander M.T. Further, the copy of inquiry report along with findings of Inquiry Officer was not supplied to him rather show-cause notice was issued to him on 8-11-2000, which was, relied by him, while decrying the allegations. But, respondent No.2 without appreciating the legal and factual position passed dismissal order on 14-12-2001. Being aggrieved of the same; he preferred departmental appeal on 20-12-2001, which was rejected through order made on 5-7-2002.

2. The appellant has preferred present appeal on grounds that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts. Further the findings of Inquiry Officer were not appreciated at final stage. While discrimination has been made in this respect. Furthermore, this established principle has been violated that no person can be punished for un-established charge. The appellant has prayed for his reinstatement in service by setting aside the impugned order.

3. In reply respondent No. 1 has completely denied the allegations and raised contention that the appellant was charged for inefficiency; misconduct and corruption. From inquiry it was found that there were no entries in daily diaries regarding incoming and outgoing of the truck for bringing fund. Further, the entries made in log book do not match with the entries in daily diaries. While the maintenance of log book is responsibility of the driver concerned. Furthermore, as the Inquiry Officer has recommended for suitable punishment, therefore, competent authority while agreeing with recommendation passed- the dismissal order. It is further his contention that all legal formalities were completed. He has prayed for dismissal of appeal.

4. The appellant being aggrieved of orders made on 14-12-2001 whereby he has been dismissed from service, and 16-9-2002, whereby his departmental appeal has been rejected. He preferred present appeal with prayer for setting aside of the said orders and his reinstatement in service with back-benefits. The perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has been charged with allegation of misappropriation of Government amount in connivance with other officers/officials of the Department. The appellant during inquiry though has admitted being working as driver of Vehicle bearing No.9841-QAF, but it is his contention that the concerned log book was not in his possession, therefore, he has not made any entry in the swine, nor it was his duty to make entry in Roznamcha. No specific inquiry has been conducted in same respect. Further; as pen record inquiry has been conducted against the appellant along with some other officials, but the order passed in same respect has not been filed by tote answering respondent. But from perusal of order Haled 16-11-2002, whereby the appeal of tine appellant along with other .accused persons was dismissed, it is apparent that some other head constables there also dismissed from service: But in the same order the Appellate Authority has mentioned that the concerned accused-officials with connivance of one Muhammad Luqman Kasi, D.S.P. the then Wing Commander B.R.P. were guilty of misappropriation of Government funds. It is further apparent from the same as well as from parawise comments filed by respondent No.1 that said D.S.P. was awarded punishment of reduction of rank from D.S.P. to Inspector along with recovery of misappropriated amount.

5. There seemed to be -some discrimination, which is not proper. As the main accused person has been retained in service while only punishment of reduction in rank has been awarded to him, thus, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, it will be just and proper to take a lenient view in respect of the appellant too. In addition as per inquiry report the appellant has not been proved to be guilty of the charge all along rather he has been said to be involved in the alleged crime along with said D.S.P.

6. Thus, keeping in view the above mentioned circumstances, in the interest of justice the appeal is hereby accepted. The impugned orders, dated 14-12-2001 and 16-11-2002 are set aside. The appellant is hereby reinstated in service from the date of dismissal with all back-benefits. However, one annual increment of the appellant is withheld/forfeited. These are the reasonings of short order made on 19-12-2002.

7. No orders as to costs. File after completion be consigned to record. H.B.T./2/BST Appeal accepted.