1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Charge‑sheet, You are charged with the following offences, committed in your capacity as District Accounts Officer‑II, Bahawalpur. (i) Admitting a fictitious sanction in favour of the so‑called Divisional Development Authority amounting to Rs. 2,76,95,377 and failing to apply the requisite checks, provided in the departmental Codes/ Manuals/Office orders relating to the audit of sanctions. (ii) Authorising payment of the amount on the fraudulent bill, pre sented at the pre‑audit counter of the District Accounts Office, Bahawalpur against Token No. 76, dated 12th March, 1977 which being a third party claim, could not be entertained unless counter signed by the Deputy Commissioner as per requirement of para. I (iv) of this Office Order No. T . M. 1/ 144, dated 19th May, 1975. (2) Your negligence having resulted in the fraudulent payment of a huge amount, you are hereby charged with "inefficiency" and "Misconduct" under rule 3(a) and (b) of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 for which you are liable to the imposition of one or more of the penalties prescribed under 0 a‑y~ rule 4 (ibid). (3) You are, therefore, required under rule 6 (2) of the aferesaid Rules, to put in your written defence as to why the above‑mention ed action should not be taken against you, stating simultaneously whether you would wish to be heard in person, or to lead evidence in your defence. If so, you should appear before the Inquiry Officer Mr. M. Akram Khan (Deputy Director, Training Centre), Lahore, when summoned by him. (4) Your written defence should reach the Accountant‑General, Punjab (for onward transmission to his office) within 14 days of the receipt of this charge‑sheet, failing which it would ‑be presumed that you had no defence to offer, and would thus render yourself liable to action ex pane."

6. The appellant furnished his defence reply on 31st October, 1977. Thereafter, the proceedings came to a stand still when a show‑cause notice, dated 21st May, 1981 was served on the appellant. This show‑cause notice running into five pages gave complete details of the charges. The appellant furnished his defence reply on 4th June, 1981 pleading for giveness and highlighting the fact that he had remained under suspension for the last four years.

7. On 19th September, 1981 the appellant filed a writ petition (4464‑S J 1981) in the Lahore High Court. The learned High Court vide order, dated 10th January, 1982 recorded: "Learned counsel of the petitioner wishes to withdraw the writ petition so as to approach the appropriate Services Tribunal for the redress of his grievance ."

8. On 16th August, 1982 a notification was issued whereby the appel lant stood retired compulsorily under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. From the order of compulsory retirement the appellant filed a review petition on 9th September 1982, which was rejected, vide letter, dated 18th December, 1982. Thereafter, he came up in appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on Ist January, 1983.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a number of technical issues, whereby the disciplinary proceedings, culminating in the compulsory retirement of the appellant, were, according to him, rendered void ab initio. Elaborating his objections, he said that the suspension had been ordered by the Auditor‑General and further that the suspension had not been extended regularly every three months as was required by mandatory provisions of the rules. Also, that the charge‑sheet had been served by the same officer and the enquiry conducted under his order. All this was done when the Auditor -General was not authorised officer.

10. The learned State counsel conceded that the Auditor‑General was not the authorised officer while the suspension was ordered, charge‑sheet issued and the inquiry instituted. He stated, however, that the Auditor- General had been designated as the authorised officer before the show cause, dated 21st May, 1981 was served. The show cause was, therefore, validly issued.

11. We have no doubt that the present is a simple and straightforward case in which the appellant released payment of a huge sum o Rs. 2,76,95,377 without the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur who was his immediate superior. We are also not impressed by the action of the appellant in rushing to Lahore (Finance Department) to ascertain the genuineness of the payment and claiming credit for his dash to the provincial metropolis. In fact, all that he had to do was to apply his commonsense and to get in touch with the Deputy Commissioner o the Commissioner who were right there at Bahawalpur. We are also surprised that though the appellant was ignorant as to the existence or otherwise of the so‑called Bahawalpur Development Authority yet he was casual enough to take the unusual step of releasing such a massive sum of money.

12. In order to establish the inefficiency of the appellant in this case, the show cause, as was done, would be considered sufficient under rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 That such a show cause with adequate details was served on appellant by the Auditor General, when he had been vested with the power of the authorised officer proved to our satisfaction, that the defence of the appellant had not been prejudiced and that he was afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain his conduct. However, the suspension of the appellant by the Auditor‑General before he became the authorised officer, was illegal and so were the enquiry proceedings. This fact notwithstanding, the evidence gathered as a result of the enquiry would be available and could be legitimately used meaning B thereby that the evidence, in itself, did not become illegal.

13. It is an admitted position that before making payment, it had t be verified as per rule 8.15 of P.F. R. Vol. I read with Article 44(i) of Audi Code and note below para. 223 of the Manual of Department Audit Section. Even if we presume, for the sake of argument, that no such instructions existed, we cannot imagine that such a big sum of money could be paid b someone, who held a responsible position like the appellant, in the off handed manner in which it was paid. We have, therefore, no double that the charge of inefficiency against the appellant stands established upto the hilt.

14. In view of the foregoing analysis, we uphold the penalty of com‑1 pulsory retirement and dismiss the appeal. However, the fact that we have held the entire period of appellant's suspension to be illegal, he would be paid full pay and allowances including increments, for the said period.

15. Ordered accordingly with no costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.