1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AHDUR RASHID (MEMBER). ‑ The appellant, Humayun Zaheer, a National Savings Officer, was served a charge‑sheet dated 7th July, 1980. The said charge together with the statement of allegations (alongwith Annex ures `A' and `B' thereto) is reproduced You, Mr. Muhammad Hamayun Zaheer, National Savings Officer (Grade‑16), are charged as under : (i) During the period you worked as National Savings Officer, Incharge National Savings Centre, Temple Road, Lahore, your subordinate staff, due to your mismanagement and loose control, indulged in illegal withdrawal of money from Khaas Deposit Account and fraudulent pocketing of profit of Khaas Deposit Certificates by forging the signature of clients and thus an amount of Rs. 11,671 was misappropriated as per list at Annexure `B'. (ii) As Officer Incharge of National Savings Centre, Temple Road, you not only connived in the irregularities of your subordinates but evidence is available that you yourself indulged in forged withdrawals and pocketed a sum of Rs. 8,849.40 as per details at Annexure `A'. (iii) An amount of Rs. 16,951 was embezzled /misappropriated by Mr. Basharat Ullah Khan on 5th August, 1979 vide withdrawal Slip No. 373343 from Khas Deposit Account No. 138 of Haji Bashir Ahmad. You put your initials on the payment journal overlooking entries in the Ledger Card where there was no entry of this with drawal. Had you checked the Ledger Card, the fraud could have been detected/ disclosed at the closing hours of the same day. As such, this fraud had been committed either with your connivance and sweet‑will or due to your gross negligence.

2. You are required to explain within 14 days of receipt of this charge -sheet as to why action on the grounds of misconduct and inefficiency should not be taken against you and a major penalty imposed under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. You may also state whether you desire to be heard in person.

3. Statement of allegations is attached.

4. Please acknowledge receipt. (Sd.) (Adnan Ahmad Ali) Chief Director." "Statement of Allegations against Mr. Muhammad Humayun Zaheer, National Savings Officer (Inspection), Directorate of National Savings, Lahore. While working at the National Savings Centre, Temple Road, Lahore, he committed the irregularities as under :‑ (i) In all the cases as detailed in the statement attached as Annexure `A' he misappropriated amounts of profit on Khaas Deposit Certificates by showing reinvestment of the amounts and receiving profit thereon under fake and fictitious signatures of the clients. The signatures of the applicants, on the applications for reinvestment of profit, do not tally with their signatures on the original applications. Further, the signatures for discharge of the Certificates issued on reinvestment of profit, do not tally with the signatures recorded at the time of discharge of original certificates. Moreover, the holders of the certificates have confirmed that their bogus signatures had been recorded on different documents. (ii) In all the cases detailed in the statement attached as Annexure `B', he was not vigilant and efficient and did not perform duty properly. Due to his slack supervision and lack of responsibility on his part a sum of Rs. 11,671 was embezzled by his staff during the period from 28th April, 1979 to 24th January, 1980. He failed to check the daily work which resulted in bogus payments. Fictitious signatures were recorded on various documents and bogus payment orders were passed under his own signatures as well as of his then second officer viz., MI. Basharat Ullah Khan. (iii) An amount of Rs 16,951 was embezzled/misappropriated by Mr Basharat Ullah Khan on 5th August, 1979 vide Withdrawal Slip No. 373343 from Khaas Deposit Account No. 138 of Haji Bashir Ahmad. He put his initials on the payment journal overlooking entries in the Ledger Cards where there was no entry of this withdrawal. Had he checked the Ledger Card, the fraud could have been detected)' "''t disclosed at the closing hours of the same day. As such, this fraud had been committed either with his own connivance or due to his gross negligence. "Annexure‑A" "Statement showing the particulars of amounts of profit of Khaas Deposit Certificates Embezzled/Misappropriated by Mr. Muhammad Humayun Zaheer. Application & SI. No. Registration Date of Amount of No. allotted Old Rgis‑ Issue/ profit/mis‑ Remarks on reinvest‑ tration No. Encashment appropriated. ment. ________________________________________________________________________ 1. 3809 1220 28‑7‑1979 Rs. 4,815.00 ‑- 2. 3877 702 10‑9‑1979 Rs. 240.00 -‑ 3. 3878 745 10‑9‑1979 Rs. 180.00 -‑ 4. 3887 1361 16‑9‑1979 Rs. 720.00 -‑ 5. 3888 1361 16‑9‑1979 Rs. 360.00 -‑ 6. 3891 1362 17‑9‑1979 Rs. 360.00 -- 7. 3892 1362 17‑94979 Rs. 180.00 ‑‑ 8. 3920 3444 4‑10‑1979 Rs. 144.00 ‑- 9. 3934 3112 20‑10‑1979 Rs. 108.00 -‑ 10. 3935 3112 20‑10‑1979 Rs. 54.00 -‑ 11. 3970 3017 19‑11‑1979 Rs. 36.00 -‑ 12. 3971 3001 19‑11‑1979 Rs. 72.00 -‑ 13. 3972 3004 19‑11‑1979 Rs. 144.00 -‑ 14. 3980 1985 28‑11‑1979 Rs. 144.90 -‑ 15. 4002 3265 10‑12‑1979 Rs. 720.00 -‑ 16. 4003 3265 10‑12‑1979 Rs. 360.00 -‑ 17. 4043 3180 29‑12‑1979 Rs. 141.60 -‑ 18. 4044 3180 29‑12‑1979 Rs. 70.80 -‑

Total Rs.8,849.40"

________________________________________________________________________ Annexure B" "Statement showing the details of amounts embezzled/misappropriated by the Staff of National Savings Centre, Temple Road, Lahore, during the period from 28th April, 1979 to 24th January, 1980 (When Mr. Muhammad Humayun Zaheer, National Savings Officer (Grade‑16) remained the Incharge of the Centre). Application & Sl. No. Registration Old Regis‑ Date of Amount of No. allotted tration No. Issue/ profit mis‑ Remarks on reinvestment Encashment appropriated ________________________________________________________________________ 1. 3722 2010 3‑6‑1979 Rs. 54.00 -‑ 2. 3723 2011 3‑6‑1979 Rs. 90.00 -‑ 3. 3724 2012 3‑6‑1979 Rs. 90.00 -‑ 4. 3725 2015 3‑6‑1979 Rs. 54.00 -‑ 5. 3739 1097 13‑6‑1979 Rs. 4,200.00 -‑ 6. 3740 1097 13‑6‑1979 Rs. 1,366.75 ‑‑ 7. 3741 1097 13‑6‑1979 Rs. 1,116.50 ‑- 8. 3742 1097 13‑6‑1979 Rs. 904‑75 -- 9. 3743 1097 13‑6‑1979 Rs. 693.00 -‑ 10. 3744 1097 13‑6‑4979 Rs. 504.00 -‑ 11. 3745 1097 13‑6‑1979 Rs. 294.00 -‑ 12. 3778 1624 5‑7‑1979 Rs. 360.00 -- 13. 3779 1625 5‑7‑1979 Rs. 360.00 -- 14. 3780 1626 5‑7‑1979 Rs. 360.00 -‑ 15. 3781 1627 5‑7‑1979 Rs. 360.00 -‑ 16. 3782 1628 5‑7‑1979 Rs. 360.00 -‑ 17. 3930 1141 16‑10‑1979 Rs. 252.00 -‑ 18. 3931 1142 16‑10‑1979 Rs. 252.00

Total Rs. 11,671.00"

2. The appellant, in his defence reply, dated 22nd July, 1980 denied the allegations.

3. As a result of an enquiry ordered vide Chief Director's letter, dated 21st August, 1980, the appellant was dismissed from service vide notification dated 13th May, 1981. The appellant was also debarred from future employ ment under the Government vide the said notification.

4. On 10th June, 1981, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal to the President of Pakistan against his impugned dismissal. The said appeal was routed to the Ministry of Finance for disposal by the C.M.L.A.'s Settlement vide their letter, dated 1st July, 1981. The appellant did not receive any reply to his appeal and after exhausting the waiting period of 90 days filed his present appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 20th September, 1981 which was admitted on 27th January, 1982. However, the information as to the rejection of the appellant's departmental appeal by the President of Pakistan was communicated to the Finance Secretary vide Establishment Division's O.M., dated 14th September, 1982 which was nearly eight months after this appeal had already been admitted. We do not know if the appellant was informed of the rejection of his departmental appeal by the President because the office record made available to us is silent on the subject. The present appeal was heard on 22nd May, 1984 and is being disposed of by his order.

5. We heard the learned counsel from both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, stated that after the enquiry had been con ducted, the appellant had not been served a show‑cause notice. He was, therefore, unaware of the charges which had been established against him. He was also not provided a copy of the enquiry report when such a request had been made by him. Instead, this request had been turned down by the department on the plea that the rules did not provide for the supply of the enquiry report. A final show‑cause notice was not served either. All that the department had done was to hurry the dismissal of the appellant immediately after the enquiry had been conducted. Thus, the appellant had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of defence and on this ground alone, the disciplinary proceedings taken against him could be set aside, argued the learned counsel.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent‑department said that the technical objections highlighted by his opposite number notwithstanding, the appellant had been afforded a reasonable opportunity of defence in that the enquiry had been conducted in his presence and hearing with right of cross- examination and putting up defence evidence. Charges Nos. 1 and 3 had not been established. It was on basis of Charge. No 2 that the appellant had been dismissed.

7. The respondent‑department made available to us the entire record relating to this case. We have carefully gone through the record and shall advert to it as and when necessary.

8. At the very outset and as a result of our perusal of the record, we would like to alley the misgivings of the learned counsel (for the appellant) by saying that the appellant was suspended after approval of the Finance Secretary and his period of suspension similarly extended by three months upto 25th December, 1980. The dismissal of the appellant had been ordered by the Finance Secretary on 10th May, 1981 and notified on 13th May, 1981. However, we have not come across any documentary evidence whereby it could be established that the suspension period of the appellant was extended beyond 25th December, 1980. He would, therefore, be deemed to have bee re‑instated with effect from 26th December, 1980 and would be entitled to full pay and allowances between 26th December, 1980 to 12th May, 1981.

9. As to the technical infirmities highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant, we do feel strongly that after the formal enquiry had been concluded, the appellant ought to have been served a show‑cause notice. Such a show‑cause notice was essential to communicate to the appellant that charges (i) and (iii) had not been established and that it was only charge (ii) on which the appellant was to be proceeded against. If the department felt unable to communicate the lengthy enquiry proceedings in Urdu running into 377 pages, then the least we would have expected of them was to communicate the findings of the enquiry report, dated 28th September, 1980 which are in English and run into 30 pages only. Even this was not done. The appellant was thus kept in dark and his defence has, therefore, been seriously prejudiced despite his presence during the enquiry. We can over look technical lacunae here and there but we are never benign when we discover that the defence of an aggrieved person has been compromised as appears to be the case in the appeal before us. However, it would be no help to the appellant if we were to set aside the proceedings. In that case further action like provision of enquiry report, show‑cause etc. would take time and would keep us from pronouncing an authoritative judgment on the merits of the case which appears to be vital in this appeal.

10. The appellant was exonerated of charges (i) and (iii). The reasons for such an exoneration as recorded by the Enquiry Officer (Assistant Director Administration) at pages 14 and 16 of the enquiry report, are summarized by us as under : (a) Charge (i) : (1) The appellant was on medical leave between 28th May, 1979 to 5th July, 1979. (2) Certificates issued under Registration No. 3930‑3931 on 16th October, 1979 were neither issued nor passed by him. (3) Out of twenty transactions recorded in the Token Register only the first entry bore the initial of the appellant meaning thereby that he had been away from the centre for better part on 16th October, 1979. (b) Charge (iii) : (1) Admittedly the subject fraud was committed by Basharatullah and withdrawal slip was passed in the absence of the appellant. (2) On technical grounds, too, the charge was not maintainable in that there was entry of withdrawal slip of Rs. 16,951 and this entry was posted by Mrs. Surriya Qureshi on the same day viz 5th August, 1979.

11. We agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in clearing the appellant of charges (i) and (iii). He has, however, held the appellant guilty of charge (ii). It is on the basis of said charge that the appellant has been inflicted the extreme penalty of dismissal. The reasons which we consider worthwhile and which have led the Enquiry Officer to return the verdict of guilty are summarized from the enquiry report as under : (Paraphrasing by us). (a) The certificates mentioned at Annexure A of the charge‑sheet and amounting to Rs. 8.849.40 were completed under the instructions of the appellant and were passed by him and hence his involve ment. (b) It is presumed that Humayun Zaheer compared the signatures of the clients and then passed the certificates bearing forged signatures. It is, therefore, not wrong to infer that the said officer deliberately passed the forged signatures thus being a party to the fraud. (c) Both Inayatullah Ajiz and Basharatullah have admitted that the cash of the above‑mentioned certificates was paid NOT to the clients but to the appellant. This fact is also confirmed by the statements of the clients who have confirmed that they were not paid any profit on the said forged certificates. Inayatullah and Akhtar Hameed have said that the appellant kept major share himself and a lesser amount was passed to them. (d) As stated by Basbaratullah, he used to bring the amount of irregu larly discharged certificates on the table of the appellant (Humayun Zabeer) which clearly showed that both Basharatullah and Humayun Zaheer were involved in the fraud. (e) Mr. Inayatullah Ajiz had admitted that he, Humayum Zaheer, Basharatullah and Akhtar Hameed had committed the fraud and that it had been committed at the initiative and persuasion of Humayun Zaheer. In cross‑examination Humayun Zaheer did his best to disprove the statement of Inayatullah Ajiz. The statement of Inayatullah is considered reliable because he made the statement knowing fully well that such a statement could make him suffer a major penalty. Similarly, Akhtar Hameed, U. D. C, admitted to have committed the fraud under the persuasion of Humayun Zaheer. Akhtar Hameed then stuck to his statement despite conse quences and cross‑examination of Humayun Zabeer. (f) Humayun Zaheer has stated that he came to know only on 18th March, 1980 (when no longer in the Temple Road Centre) that his staff members had committed a fraud and that this was conveyed to him when Basharatullah, Inayatullah and Akhtar Hameed visited at his (Humayun Zaheer's) house. It is clear from the statement of Inayatullah that they gathered and decided to meet the clients to refund their profit. This is yet another proof of the involvement of Humayun Zaheer in the fraud case. (g) The attendance register, token register and other relevant record jpdicated that the appellant (Humayun Zaheer) was present go the dates on which the fraud was committed. (There dates may be seen at Annexure `A' column 4). It is beyond any doubt to say that :f Officer Incharge, Cashier and Counter Clerk are physically working on their respective seats, it is not possible to commit any fraud unless all the three are in league. (h) Because, Humayun Zaheer gave above average remarks "Honest Youngman" to Messrs Inayatullah Ajiz and Akhtar Hameed in their A. C. Rs. for 1979, and also disclosed the A. C. Rs. this act (of the appellant) indicated that be was involved in the fraud case. (i) The certificates, if they were genuine, should not have been encashed on the same date since this was not normally done by the genuine certificate holders. This is another proof of the fraud by the appellant. (j) Messrs Akhtar Hameed, Inayatullah Ajiz and Basharatullah have stated that they committed the fraud with effect from 3rd June, 1979 to 3rd February, 1980 under the persuasion and instructions of Humayun Zaheer. There seems to be sufficient weight in their statement on the ground that no fraud was ever committed by the said persons in the National Savings Centre. Temple Road, before Humayun Zaheer and this is proof enough that the fraud was committed with the sweet‑will of the appellant.

11. Before we deal with the maintainability and wisdom of the above mentioned reasons, which have led the Enquiry Officer to hold the appellant guilty of charge (ii), we would like to give a broad outline of the case culmi nating in the dismissal of the appellant.

12. It was at the behest of Miss V. J. Smart, after she assumed charge, that an audit of the Temple Road Centre was carried out for the period from the 1st of June, 1979 to the 28th of February, 1980. The Audit Officer began his work on 15th March, 1980. He discovered that in certain cases, the signatures of the clients on the application forms for the purchase of Khaas Deposit Certificates differed from those affixed on the old Khaas Deposit application Forms. Further, he discovered that whereas the sig natures at the back of the matured certificates appeared to be true, those on the new applications for issue of certificates in lieu of profit appeared to be otherwise. In order, therefore, to reach a firm conclusion, the Audit Officer managed to call two clients on 20th March, 1980. The said clients confirmed that their signatures had been forged on the application forms and the discharged certificates. At this stage, yet another officer was inducted into the audit work. The two Audit Officers completed their task and identified the delinquent officials with alleged frauds given in brackets. They were ; Humayun Zaheer, appellant (Rs. 8,795.40), Basharatullah. N. S. O. (Rs. 11,671), Mrs. Surriya Qureshi, N. S. O. (Rs. 90) and Inayat ullah Ajiz, U. D. C. (Rs. 432). Subsequently, however, Mrs. Qureshi was cleared but the others were pinned down with amounts as under: --‑ Humayun Zaheer O. J/C Rs. 8,849.40 Basharatullah, N. S. O. Rs. 11,671.00 Inayatullah Ajiz, U. D. C. Rs.522.00

13. In the preliminary enquiry, Basharatullah and Inayatullah Ajiz admitted their guilt and averred that Homayun Zaheer was also a party to their fraud. Later on (but after the preliminary enquiry) another accused, namely, Akhtar Hameed, U. D. C. was discovered.

14. Due to the admission of their guilt, the three accused officials, namely, Basharatullah, Inayatullah Ajiz and Akhtar Hameed were dealt with under the summary procedure of E & D Rules, 1973. In order, how ever, to establish the involvement of the appellant (Humayun Zaheer), the Assistant Director (Admn.) from Islamabad conducted a detailed enquiry, the conclusions of which we have tabulated at para. 11 above. The said enquiry report runs into 377 pages of handwritten statements in Urdu. The proceedings have, then, been rounded up in English in the form of finding running into 30 pages.

15. The Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements of the entire staff members as well as a number of clients. We shall, mainly, deal with only the following members of staff : (a) Humayun Zaheer (appellant) Officer Incharge of the Temple Road Centre from 28th April, 1979 to 24th January, 1980 (and there after transferred as Inspecting Officer w. e. f. 25th January, 1980 and remained there till his dismissal.) (b) Basharatullah Khan, National Savings Officer, Temple Road, w. e. f. 16th July, 1977 to 9th November, 1979 whereafter he was transferred to Shahalam Market. (c) Inayatullah Ajiz, U.D.C. at Temple Road, w. e. f. 26th December. 1978 to 11th February, 1979 and again from 27th March, 1979 to 24th March, 1980. (d) Akhtar Hameed, U.D.C., served in the Temple Road Centre bet ween September, 1978, and the 31st of March, 1980. (e) Mrs. Surriya Qureshi, N.S.O., joined the Temple Road Centre with effect from 18th June, 1979. (f) Miss V. J. Smart, N.S.O., took over as Officer Incharge, Temple Road Centre, w. e. f. 24th January, 1980.

16. The preliminary, followed by the detailed enquiry, finally, identified four persons to have been involved in the fraud leaving only Mrs. Surriya Qureshi who was cleared later on although the Auditors had held her responsible for a fraud of Rs. 90 in the first instance. In other words the entire staff had been implicated leaving Mrs. Surriya Qureshi above board after she had been cleared. M/s. Basharatullah, N.S.O., Inayat ullah Ajiz, U.D.C., and Akhtar Hameed, U.D.C., admitted their guilt. While doing so they also involved the appellant, Humayun Zaheer, even though, at no stage, he had admitted his involvement like the other three culprits.

17. It is an admitted position that after their exposure, the three officials viz. Basharatullah, Inayatullah Ajiz and Akhtar Hameed visited the house of the appellant on 18th March, 1980 and made a clean breast of their involvement in the fraud. It is also an admitted position that the appellant not only asked them to repay the defrauded clients, he also brought the case to the notice of the Joint Director (Mr. Muhammad Sharif Lone). It is fully established that whereas Basharatullah and Inayatullah Ajiz reimbursed certain amounts to some of the clients, the appellant did not do any such thing. We are also inclined to agree with the appellant that the Joint Director took it for granted that the appellant was involved even before the enquiry had been finalized. In this connec tion we would like to quote, just by way of specimen, a few relevant parts of Joint Director's statement to the Enquiry Officer. While answering a question at page 213 of the enquiry report, the Joint Director (Mr. Muhammad Sharif Lone) has said: "I was sure from the very first day that in Temple Road fraud, the entire staff is involved and that I cannot imagine the commission of a fraud unless the Officer Incharge were in volved." At page 218 he says that "unless the officer Incharge, Cashier and the Clerk dealing with certificates, were all‑in‑one, the fraud was not possible. At page 220 he says that Mr. Humayun Zaheer had gone on leave but his green signal was available and had been put into operation. He goes on to say that how is it that people like Basharatullah etc. who had already been in the (Temple Road) Centre, before Humayun Zaheer, did not commit any fraud when a female was incharge. At page 219 he says that Humayun Zaheer visited his (Joint Director's) house accompanied by his father. His father, according to the Joint Director, could not satisfy him as to why no fraud had been committed before Mr. Humayun Zaheer took over.

18. As brought out at para. 11, the ten reasons tabulated by us at sub‑paras. (a) to (j), can be condensed under the following five main heads for case of future treatment. (a) Humayun Zaheer passed the forged certificates which he must have done after comparison of signatures and thus his involvement. (b) Basharatullah, Inayatullah Ajiz and Akhtar Hameed pointed an accusing finger at Humayun Zaheer and hence his involvement. (c) Since in the opinion of the Joint Director, no fraud is possible without the involvement of the Officer Incharge, Cashier and the Counter Clerk and the fact that a fraud was committed on the day Humayun Zaheer and other three were present, therefore, Humayun Zaheer is involved. (d) No fraud had been committed in the Temple Road Centre before Humayun Zaheer, hence his involvement, as authoritatively opined by the Joint Director. (e) Reasons, conjectural and hypothetical, like award of better than deserved A. C. R. and sale of certificates at a particular juncture as mentioned at para. 11 (i) and (j) and imputed to the appellant just to prove his guilt.

19. As to para. 18 (a), we would dispel it on two grounds. First and foremost : if the appellant had been a party to the fraud then the gang would have kept its activities restricted to the gang itself and would not have defrauded Mrs. Surriya Qureshi (who was certainly an outsider) and that there was no need of taking this undue risk if the Officer Incharge had been an "inside man". We feel that defrauding Mrs. Qureshi by the gang is the greatest exculpation of the appellant. Second: Is it not possible that the appellant passed the certificates because he trusted his staff and is it not possible that he was cheated, in turn, by the same staff? Certainly, a possibility.

20. And now para. 18(b) above. We have gone through the state ments of Inayatullah Ajiz, U. D. C., Basharatullah, N. S. O., and Akhtar Hamid, U. D. C. The said statements together with the cross‑examination of the appellant should leave no doubt in any one's mind that logically and as a consequence of these statements, the appellant should have been cleared of charge (ii). 1e provide a few examples of the three statements (Closest possible transaction of Urdu version into English by us). (a) Cross‑examination of Inayatullah Ajiz.‑(1) In reply to question No. 2, Inayatullah Ajiz said that it did require guts to bring about a fraud but it also requires persuasion and guidance. "My first fraud case came about on 3rd Tune, 1979". The appellant shot his next question : "In other words when you committed the crime, I was on leave on 3rd June, 1979 and, thus to seek guidance you had to rack your own brain. In it so ?" In reply it was stated : "True, you were on leave and hence I had to do this job in your absence." (2) Appellant's question No. 4 was : "It was on 28th July, 1979 that the first case of profit reinvestment was got passed by you with my signature while I was on medical leave. Together with Basharat ullah, you did 16 cases. Such being the situation, how can you say that I initiated you in the world of fraud. Was it that I sent you instructions from my house" ? The answer is : "Yes, you were on medical leave and the first case you passed is dated 28th July, 1979. All cases prior to this date were done by me and Basharatullah. You encouraged us and we did what we did." (3) Question No. 5 is : "For such fraud cases when I was on leave, did I ask for my share on return" ? Answer : "You should have asked for your share. I do not know why you did not do so." (b) It is on record that Inayatullah Ajiz made no convincing contri bution which could prove the appellant's involvement in the fraud even remotely. Due to generalisations and repeated falsehoods, the conduct of Inayatullah Ajiz speaks for itself. (c) Basharatullah and his cross‑examination.‑(1) It is interesting to observe that Basharatullah, N. S. O. in his statement made no attempt to implicate the appellant. To question No. 32 by the Enquiry Officer: "Do you think, Humayun Zaheer is innocent in this case and if so, what is your basis for such a view point"? In answer, Basharatullah said : I do not know whether he is guilty or innocent for it is upto the Enquiry Officer to come to a con clusion." In reply to question No. 40, the reply was that "the fraud can be apportioned to Inayatullah Ajiz meaning thereby that both I and Humayun Zaheer are not guilty." (2) In cross‑examination by the appellant the question No. 8 was "In reply to question No. 44 of the Enquiry Officer you have stated that in cases of fraud certificates, Humayun Zaheer used to get the money at his table. Would you elaborate" ? In reply, Basharatullah said : "It was Inayatullah Ajiz who used to get the cash from me by saying that the cash had been sent for by Humayun Zaheer because the clients are sitting with him. I used to pay the cash to Inayatullah Ajiz in these circumstances." (d) Akhtar Hamid and his cross‑examination.‑(I) Question No. 1 was: "Your first fraud case, according to you, was on 13th October, 1979 when 1 was on leave. This being so, how can you say that I per suaded you to commit the crime" ? The answer is: "Obviously, you were on leave. This case was the result of a collusion between me and Ajiz." (2) Question No. 9 : "You have said in your statement that from four cases (of fraud) you received a few hundred rupees. Could you specify the amount "? The answer is : "Since the amount was received in instalments I am unable to recollect the amount with precision." We feel that the authorised officer (Chief Director) has not read the enquiry report and has depended upon subordinates and their judgment. Had he read the report and had he cared to be objective as it was his legal and moral duty to do in a case involving the dignity and honour of one of his subordinates, he would have realised that the‑appellant could not be held guilty of charge (ii). As to the Enquiry Officer's conduct, all that we would say is that had he kept his mind open and free from pre‑conceived notions fed into him by the Joint Director (Mr. Lone), he would not have reached the faulty conclusions which were depended upon along the line, blind- foldedly, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice as is evident in the appeal before us. The wisdom of truism that no one should be prejudged has been amply borne out by this case.

22. The evidence on record from which we have quoted at para. 20, demolishes the credibility of the culprits if ever they had any such credi bility. We have no doubt that once the appellant declined to come to their rescue, the delinquent officials thought it best to involve him, if for no other reason then at least for the pleasure of hanging together. Since there is no evidence against the appellant apart from accusations which do not exist outside and independent of Basharatullah, Inayatullah Ajiz and Akhtar Hameed and there is virtually nothing on the basis of which the appellant could be condemned, then all that is left is to exonerate him.

23. As to pare. 18(c) that unless the Officer Incharge, the Cashier and the certificates dealing clerk were all involved, the fraud could not be com mitted, it is only a conjecture. We are constrained to remark that the thinking of the Joint Director and the Enquiry Officer, was biased and hence myopic. The question that we would like to ask of the two responsi ble officials is : If we were agree with them then how could they explain the fraud which was committed when Mrs. Surriya Qureshi was defrauded as Officer Incharge? Also, how could they explain the fact when Miss V. J Smart as Officer Incharge was defrauded ? The Joint Director and the Enquiry Officer, are, therefore, not correct in their assumption that WITHOUT involvement of the Officer Incharge, the fraud is not possible. If it had not been possible then the two ladies we have just named, would have been guilty of the fraud and would not have been cleared of the charge as was done subsequently. It was the same band viz. Basharatullah and Inayatullah Ajiz who forged the signa tures of the ladies. The same persons forged the signatures of Miss Bushra Zafar who remained posted as a clerk in the Centre between January‑June. 1979. In this connection the statement of the said officials may be seen‑at page 326 of the enquiry report. Bushra Zafar was doubtlessly transferred at the behest of Basharatullah and among other things, the reason for her transfer could be that she did not fit into the gang's scheme of things. In this connection the statements of Basharatullah and the Joint Director (Mr. Lone) have led us to this inference.

24. The issue at para. 18(d) viz. absence of fraud before the arrival of the appellant, has been played up gleefully by the Joint Director without considering its implications. The Joint Director would have been mean ingful if as a priori, there had been audit of at least one previous year made available on the file. This is not the case. Therefore, how do we know that frauds have or have not been committed before the appellant took over the Temple Road Centre ? The appellant, too, has cried hoarse about previous audits but no one has listened to him. How do the Joint Director and the Enquiry Officer explain the fraud after the appellant had left and Miss Smart had taken over? It is on record (in Miss Smart's statement at pages 304‑305) that Inayatullah Ajiz, on 3rd February, 1980 had forged the signatures of the client in respect of certificates 4110 to 4112. It goes to the credit of Miss Smart that she initiated the audit of her centre where, accord ing to her, the record was not in good shape. It was as a result of her request that the Joint Director detailed an Audit Team which unearthed the fraud and eliminated such persons as Basharatullah, Inayatullah Ajiz and Akhtar Hameed The involvement of the appellant in the form of serious negligence was also unearthed in the process. Miss Smart deserve a bouquet.

25. As to para. 18(e), it is easily explainable. It is on record that the appellant genuinely thought that Inayatullah Ajiz and Akhtar Hameed were honest till they defied his trust and proved otherwise. As to the improbability of certificates encashment on the same date as highlighted at para. 11(i), the Enquiry Officer has nowhere established that such and not otherwise should always be the case and hence the futility of raising the issue, at all,

26. The foregoing exhaustive treatment of this case leaves us in no doubt, whatever, that even though not provided with reasonable opportunity of defence, the appellant has not been found guilty of the fraud. We, there fore, accept the appeal and exonerate him of charge (ii). As a result, we set aside the impugned order of dismissal notified vide Gazette Notification No. F. 4(4)‑Admn. II/80, dated 13th May, 1981 and order the appellant's re‑instatement into service, with effect from the date of his dismissal viz. 13th May, 1981 as if he had never been so dismissed and, instead, had been in continuous employ. The period of his absence between 13th May, 1981 and the date of his rejoining, as a result of this order, shall, however, be treated as leave without pay.

27. Ordered accordingly with no costs. A, E Appeal accepted.