1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan for Appellant. Mirza Musharraf Ali Jami for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th June, 1995. ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Zorab was working as Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices (East), Islamabad GPO. He was served with a charge‑sheet on 12‑11‑1992 for the following: "Mr. Muhammad Zorab, ASPO's (East), Islamabad GPO got entered/renewed 67 Arm Licences at E‑8 Post Office, Islamabad on reduced rates on 26‑3‑1992 after transferring from other Post Offices, indicating bogus addresses of the licence holders, as those all licences were issued by the other District Magistrate, instead of District Magistrate, Islamabad and cannot be entered/renewed at any of the Post Office, situated in Federal Territory. He was well conversant with the relevant rules but he ignored all the standing orders of District Magistrate, Islamabad and got entered/renewed the arm licences misusing his official capacity and given a chance to Mr. Muhammad Rasheed to misappropriate the Government money, due to which the Government caused a heavy loss to the tune of Rs.18,610." The appellant denied the charge and submitted that Mr. Muhammad Rashid, Postmaster, Post Office E‑8 who was incharge of the said post office, was responsible for renewal of Arms Licences and the appellant was not responsible for the alleged offence. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against both the officials and the charge was inquired into by holding regular inquiry. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that out of 67 Arms Licences, as alleged, only 7 licences were renewed at reduced rates of Islamabad Territory, but the competent Authority did not agree and finally by order dated 31‑10‑1994 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Being aggrieved, the appellant made a departmental appeal on 30‑11‑1994 which was not responded, and he then filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the charge against the appellant is frivolous as in the charge‑sheet 67 licences were mentioned, whereas according to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, there were only 7 Arms Licences; and that the appellant was not responsible for renewal of the licences but it was Mr. Muhammad Rashid, the concerned Postmaster who was also proceeded under the E&D Rules but was imposed the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments and the appellant having less responsibility was awarded major penalty of compulsory retirement and there is clear discrimination. He also submitted that the appellant had made good loss due to compelling circumstances and fear, and as such he was not liable for any punishment.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated his submissions and justified the action of the department.

4. From the documents placed on record, it transpires that the appellant being Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices had a supervisory role but was not directly concerned with the renewal of Arms Licences, it is alleged that at the instance of the appellant Mr. Muhammad Rashid renewed the licences and on the record there is no direct evidence against the appellant and there is word of Muhammad Rashid. Whatever may be the circumstances, the appellant could not be absolved of his supervisory role, but he could not be made responsible for renewal of licences, but at the most, he could be charged for 'negligence' as he was supposed to check the entries of the licences and he should have been vigilant. The appellant and the other co‑accused Muhammad Rashid have made good the loss proportionately and the loss alleged to have been sustained for renewal of 79 licences has been recovered, whereas actual loss is for 7 licences. It is also surprising that Mr. Muhammad Rashid, who was the Incharge of the Post Office and had renewed the arms licences, has been treated leniently by awarding the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments, while the appellant has been imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, which has deprived the appellant and his family members from their livelihood and particularly when he has only put in 18 years' service and had to serve the department up to the age of superannuation. We are of the view that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not commensurate with the charge of negligence and there is glaring discrimination in the case of the appellant as the main responsible person has been awarded penalty of stoppage of two increments. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant made on 30‑11‑1994, and instead impose the penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 30‑11‑1994 without cumulative effect. The appellant shall be re‑instated in service with all benefits. With regard to excess payment of Government loss, there is no prayer by appellant and as such no order is required. H.B.T./5/Sr.F Appeal accepted.