1994 PLP 426 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine whether the penalty of dismissal from service had to be modified by the Service Tribunal into that of compulsory retirement in view of the punishment having been so modified in the case of Muhammad Hanif who was found guilty to the same extent and for the same misconduct.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant (Mr. Attiqur Rehman Qazi) we find that the distinguishing features of the case of the appellant and that of Muhammad Hanif are numerous. The charge against Muhammad Hanif was as hereunder:‑‑ "Whereas you Mr. Muhammad Hanif CS/TL(B‑7) CTO, Peshawar while working in Nowshera Telegraph Office as Incharge during leave period are alleged to have sent old ENG‑8 and NEG‑9 books to CTO Peshawar by registered parcels Nos.23 and 24 dated 25‑7‑1984 on the as called verbal orders of Superintendent I/C TO Peshawar whereas no such orders were given. The investigation conducted by this Office through Post Master, Nowshera intimated that these were registered letters and not parcels bearing Nos.23 and 24 were actually booked on 29‑7‑84 and not on 25‑7‑

84. He intimated by you in your letter No.T 1/HSI dated 25‑7‑84 (which was handed over to Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Butt, ACS, Peshawar on 20/24‑8‑1984 while on tour to Nowshera TO. Moreover these articles (Nos.23 and 24) were registered letters and not registered parcels. As such these ENG‑8 books stated to have been sent to these persons, were never received in this Office and were intentionally destroyed by you. The books so destroyed involve short charges misappropriation of Government PCO revenue of Nowshera Telegraph Office Rs.5,13,140.92 for which responsibility against the officials could not be fixed. You tried to mislead this office by giving false information and fake parcel numbers."

3. The charge against the appellant and the finding of the Inquiry Officer were as hereunder:‑‑ "The allegations against the accused are that while working as Incharge, Telegraph Office, Nowshera during the period 10/82 to 5/84 failed to maintain office record such as (a) Incharge diary showing dudes of the staff. (b) Cash M/O T/O registers, (c) Overseas calls booking register. Due to non‑maintenance of the proper record responsibility of the staff working on PCO 206 for embezzlement of Rs.199,771.95 could not be fixed. The record was examined. Cash M/O T/O registers and Overseas calls booking registers were not prepared at all. Two Incharge diaries 19‑3‑83 to 5‑7‑83 and 14‑6‑83 to 21‑6‑83 were checked. Both were prepared in a haphazard manner and were incomplete. Both the diaries were shown to the accused. Diaries for many dates were not written especially 2‑4‑83 to 8‑4‑83, 13‑10‑84 to, 31‑11‑84 and 25‑12‑84 to 31‑12‑84 was not maintained. The diary was in good condition and its pages were not found missing. To my astonishment at many pages nothing was written except date. Names of staff indicating their duty and points were not maintained. Attention of the accused was drawn to his defence statement stating that all office record was maintained by him. The accused‑ official was shown the incomplete diaries and was asked to explain reasons thereof but he could not and stated irrelevant things. The accused was shown an Incharge diary for the period 19‑3‑83 to 5‑7‑83 and second diary from 14‑6‑83 to 21‑6‑83 and was asked to explain reasons for maintaining double diary for the period 14‑6‑83 to' 5‑7‑

83. The reply of the accused was too fully rubbish, irrelevant and misleading. Above‑noted few instances clearly indicate that office record from 10/82 to 5/84 was not maintained properly and was insufficient for fixation of responsibilities. of the officials working on PCO. Under the circumstances stated above I am of the opinion that Mr. Umer Khitab being Incharge of the Office was fully responsible for it. The charges levelled against him have been proved."

4. Another distinguishing feature is that the appellant had already a blemished record, as in the year. 1987 not only he was censured byway of penalty but short charges amounting to Rs.15,480 were also ordered to be recovered from him. With these distinguishing features, the appellant could claim no mitigation in the penalty. The appeal is found without merit and is dismissed. A.A./U‑53/S. Appeal dismissed.