2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).

As per facts relevant to this appeal; the appellant while posted as Excise and Taxation Inspector, District Bahawalnagar was proceeded against, on the allegations that while working in Motor Branch Bahawalnagar, he made bogus registration of 14 tractors, registered 46 motorcycles and 19 tractors without payment of registration fee/token fee which was apparently misappropriated by the appellant. The amount (apart from amount of bogus registration) misappropriated on account of registration fee in respect of 46 motorcycles and 19 tractors worked out to Rs.63,175 at old rates. Proceedings were started against the appellant on receipt of complaint from tractor dealers. Inquiry was held and allegations of misappropriation of registration fee and preparation of bogus registration papers in respect of 14 tractors were proved. Consequently, through impugned orders, dated 17-3-2005, appellant was removed from service under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (P.R.S.O.). He filed departmental appeal, but the same was rejected through impugned orders dated 21-9-2005

hence present appeal in this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case at length. It is stated at bar that regular inquiry was not properly held and appellant was condemned without giving him ample opportunity to defend his cause. It is also stated that allegations levelled against the appellant were baseless because the culprit responsible for preparation of bogus papers and misappropriation of registration fee was the clerk one Malik Naseer Ahmad working in the Motor Branch. The appellant happened to be his supervisory officer and had issued the registrations after the said Malik Naseer Ahmad had certified and the relevant form that payments had been made on account of registration/token tax etc. It is also maintained that appellant had rendered snore than 24 years service and had never committed such misconduct and that while the appellant was singled out for award of extreme penalty of removal from service, no action was taken against the said clerk Malik Naseer Ahmad who was mainly responsible for the irregularities detected in the Motor Branch. It is next pointed out that the appellant could not find the opportunity to look into bogus payment receipts because it was for the motor taxation clerk to verify the payment receipts as per normal practice. It is next contended that if the appellant as supervisory officer could be held responsible for lapses taking place in the Motor Branch, then officers next above him like ETO etc. were also equally responsible. Learned counsel has also taken exception to the competence of respondent No.1 in deciding the departmental appeal filed by the appellant because at that time, posting of the said respondent as Director-General, Excise and Taxation Punjab stood challenged by some departmental officer and the matter was sub judice. It is finally stated that the appellant was over-burdened as he was holding dual charge and that if any error/omission was committed, that could simply be considered as normal human error as the appellant had not committed 1the irregularities advertently.

3. Respondents have opposed the appeal, maintaining that the appellant had himself confessed in the course of regular inquiry that he had committed the irregularities and that he had also deposited the misappropriated amount of registration fee etc. and had requested for pardon on compassionate grounds. It is next pointed out that inquiry was conducted in accordance with rules. Allegations were fully proved against the appellant, he being directly responsible for the commission of irregularities and not the motor registration clerk. It is also maintained that it was the cardinal official responsibility of the appellant to issue registration certificates and not of the clerk. The appellant was trying to shift the burden to the Junior Clerk. It is further pointed out that embezzlement committed by the appellant stood fully proved. The appellant was confronted with irrefutable material evidence regarding preparation of bogus registrations and misappropriation of registration tees and that in the course of regular inquiry, appellant' failed to rebut the allegations. It is finally maintained that the appellant had himself filed departmental appeal before respondent No. 1 and had ever objected against the authority of the said respondent in taking decision on his departmental appeal.

4. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record as made available. I find that the appellant was proceeded against on allegations of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption arising out of some complaints against him particularly the complaint from one Abdul Sattar, Managing Partner of Sutlej Traders (Registered) District Bahawalnagar. According to specifics of the complaint, the appellant was alleged to have issued bogus registrations in respect of at least 14 tractors. Soon thereafter, it was detected that the appellant had issued registration papers in respect of 46 motorcycles and 19 tractors but had misappropriated registration/token fees because the amounts on account of registration fees were not deposited into Government Treasury. Regular inquiry was held in which the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations. I have carefully gone through the proceedings of regular inquiry. As per those proceedings, appellant failed to defend himself and he directly and indirect confessed commission of irregularities. The appellant also showed his readiness, in the course of regular inquiry, to pay the amount of registration/token fees in respect of various vehicles which had not been deposited by him into Government Treasury. There is a statement dated 15-3-2005 on record from the appellant. This statement reads as under:-- Obviously, this is a statement of confession of guilt. I do not agree with the appellant that respondent No.1 could not decide departmental appeal Piled by him. No doubt, posting of respondent No. 1 as Director-General, Excise and Taxation Punjab stood challenged by some departmental officers at that time in the Court, but the appellant had, knowing all these facts, filed appeal before the said authority which was rejected. I, therefore, find that the appellant has not been able to furnish any evidence or any cogent ground to establish his guitlessness. The only allowance that could be given to the appellant was the length of his service of about 25 years and also the fact that the appellant had deposited the Registration fees etc. into Government Treasury. Considering this aspect of the case, while prayer of the appellant for reinstatement is dismissed, it is ordered that the punishment of removal from service, shall stand converted into that of compulsory retirement, 'and impugned orders shall stand modified accordingly.

5. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. H.B.T./31/PST Order accordingly.