1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IMTIAZ RASOOL (MEMBER).

The case relates to Appeal No. 18 of 1990 filed by Mehboob Hussain, a Senior clerk of the Police Department against order of his dismissal from service. We heard 'Mr. Hassan Akbar for the appellant and Mr.Salman Ansari on behalf of the official respondents. We have also perused the relevant papers/record.

2. The background of the case is that the appellant while posted as senior clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police Traffic, Karachi East was assigned duties of Cashier. On 1-2-1986, he drew a sum of Rs.4,58,715.50 from the Bank for payment of salaries to the staff. After distribution of a sum of Rs.3,81,921.50, balance of Rs.76,794 was left with him which he kept in the safe of the steel almirah wherein Rs.4,115.90 were already lying. He kept the key of the safe in the steel almirah while the key of the steel almirah remained in his possession. On 2-2-1986 the lock of the almirah was found broken and total amount (Rs.80,909.90) stolen. F.I.R. was registered with Airport Police Station, Karachi and the appellant was placed under suspension. The case was investigated by C.I.A. Police and disposed of as untraced Class. The SDPO Traffic Central Sub-Division, Karachi enquired into the matter and pointed out that the place where the money was kept was not safe for the purpose specially when there was no police guard posted there. He however remarked that there was no negligence on the part of the cashier. The appellant was reinstated in service vide order dated 16-12-1986. The case was reopened through a letter dated 23-1-1988 from D.I.-G. Police T&H (Sindh) Karachi addressed to S.P. Traffic, Karachi District East in which he raised number of queries to which the S.P. Traffic responded. Thereafter, he was transferred by the Inspector-General of Police, Sindh to Sukkur Range on 9-2-1988. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sukkur Range again placed him (the appellant) under suspension vide order dated 8-3-1988. He was charge-sheeted by the D.I: G. The charges as brought out in the charge-sheet dated 14-3-1988, served on the appellant were that while posted in the office of S.P. Traffic, Karachi District East as Cashier he was entirely responsible for safe custody/disbursement of cash drawn from bank on account of pay of traffic staff, other recoveries etc. On the day he drew the money he failed to disburse the entire amount and there remained cash balance of Rs.80,909.90 after closing. He was supposed to inform the D.D.O. (S.P.Traffic East) for safe custody of such a heavy amount but failed to do so and kept the balance cash in a steel almirah quite unsafe for the said purpose. Besides this, he kept the key of safe in the almirah opening way for taking away Government cash easily. The cash was taken away on account of his carelessness/negligence which amounts to gross misconduct.

3. The appellant responded to the charge-sheet denying the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by D.S.P. Headquarter Sukkur who also obtained written statement of the appellant. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sukkur after issuing final show-cause notice dismissed the appellant on the recommendations, of the enquiry officer, 'from service vide order dated 27-10-1988. Against this order, the appellant appeal to the Inspector-General of Police, Sindh on 10-11-1988 which was rejected by the concerned office vide order dated 14-1-1990 which reads as under: "Appeal from Ex-Senior Clerk Mehboob Hussain against his dismissal was considered. He was also heard in person. In spite of the technical lacunae in the proceedings he cannot be allowed to return to the police department where he has amply proved his lack of responsibility and credibility. The charge of the theft is there and the petitioner has not been cleared of it. The appeal filed in this Tribunal on 13-2-1990 is against the aforesaid order i.e. dated 14-1-1990.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits but requested that penalty awarded to the appellant be reduced in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the other side was heard.

5. In view of the statement made by the counsel for. the appellant it would not be worthwhile to enter into detailed examination of the case on merit. We should therefore confine ourselves to the question of the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant, as to whether it was commensurate with the circumstances of the case and, if not to what extent it could be modified.

6. No doubt the financial loss has occurred to Government on account of the theft of Rs.80,909.90 from the steel almirah in charge of the appellant. However, important point for our consideration is to determine the extent of the appellant's responsibility for the loss. As per the report of the SDPO Traffic Central Sub-Division, Karachi that he submitted in the wake of preliminary enquiry held by him neither the iron safe nor the police guard was provided at the place where the steel almirah was kept. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the appellant was not to be blamed for the theft. As stated above the case was registered with police which after due investigation was disposed of as untraced. The only fault attributed to the appellant was that he forgot to remove the key of C the drawer inside the steel almirah, though the steel almirah itself was locked and its key was in his safe custody. There is no evidence to indicate that he left the key in the drawer deliberately. Such lapses are committed some times by over-vigilant people. In any case it was not so grave as to have justified the extreme penalty of the appellant's dismissal. With bringing end to his service, not only he was deprived of his source of livelihood but thereby his entire family was also penalised. The appellant's claim that his service of about 19 years was unblemished has -not been seriously contested. On top of all this, the appellant has suffered the agony of protraction of the case and its resultant consequence like remaining under suspension twice from 3-2-1986 to 16-12-1986 and then from 8-3-1988 till the date of his dismissal from service due (i.e. 27-10-1988) which works out to about eighteen months in all.

7. Given the matter due thought and keeping in view that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant is too harsh. While maintaining the recommendations of the enquiry officer that major punishment be awarded to the appellant we direct that major penalty of reduction in rank to the lower post, from the post of senior clerk to junior clerk, for a period of three years effective from the date of the impugned order (i.e. 14-1-1990), be substituted for the present major penalty of dismissal from service. Subject to this modification in the penalty the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./288/Sr.S Appeal partly allowed.