1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Saeedur Rehman Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd January, 1993. RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant, Javed Muhammad lqbal, had been working as Assistant Postmaster (B‑9) with effect from 16‑9‑1988 at Khushab vide order dated 4‑2‑1989 and had functioned as APM Pension up to 14‑11‑1989. During the years 1987‑88 and 1988‑89, some audit observations had been taken by the Audit Party and an amount of Rs.13,51,600 had been found to be not accounted for properly/ misappropriated/ embezzled. A charge‑sheet was issued to the appellant on 10‑2‑1990 putting onus of such misappropriation on one Mr. Ikhlaq Ahmad, M.O. Clerk, Khushab GPO. The opening Para of charge‑sheet reads as under:‑‑ "On receipt of Audit objections/reports from the Director of Accounts Pakistan Post Office Department, Lahore, it has been found that a huge amount of Rs.13,51,600 detected so far, has been misappropriated during the period from 10‑LO‑1987 to 10‑5‑1989 as per detail of defrauded M.0's given below ."

2. Accordingly departmental proceedings had been conducted against the appellant and consequently the appellant had been given a punishment of reduction to a lower stage by five steps in time scale B‑7 and recovery of loss amounting to Rs.3,92,000 vide order dated 12‑12‑1991. The appellant had made a departmental representation/appeal on 9‑1‑1992 which was not replied and, therefore, he submitted the instant appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal on 5‑5‑1992.

3. The learned counsel had stated that since the appellant had been working in B‑9 with effect from 1988 vide order of Department dated 4‑2‑1989 supported by order dated 11‑2‑1992, as such competent Authority to take such a disciplinary action against the appellant was Deputy Director General/Assistant Deputy Director‑General (Adam.) vide letter dated 27‑9‑1983 and not Senior Postmaster who had imposed the penalty dated 12‑12‑1991 under his own signatures. As such the disciplinary proceedings taken against him and punishments given thereof was incompetent and void ab initio. He further mentioned that according to charge‑sheet since the only culprit for misappropriation was Mr. Ikhlaq, M.O. Clerk, therefore, the recovery of Rs.3,92,000 from the appellant was totally illegal and not maintainable. He had, therefore, prays at the appeal be accepted and the order of punishments be set aside.

4. The learned counsel and the Representative of the Respondent Department had mentioned that since the appellant had been holding the substantive post of B‑7 and not B‑9, Senior Postmaster, Khushab was competent to take disciplinary proceedings and impose punishments on him. But from the punishments awarded and appellant's reduction to B‑7 indicated that initially he was holding B‑

9. As such the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was correct and accordingly the competent Authority to take disciplinary proceedings and award punishment was Deputy/Assistant Director‑General (Adorn.) and not the Senior Postmaster. After going through the facts and hearing the parties, we found that the accused to misappropriate the amount of Rs.13,51,600 was Mr. Ikhlaq Ahmad, M.O. Clerk and not the appellant who had been also punished for recovery of Rs.3,92,000 which is not justified and is not sustainable. However, the appellant had not exercised his proper vigilance over his junior Mr. Ikhlaq Ahmad who had misappropriated the huge amount and it was a definite failure of performance of his duties on his part.

5. Under the aforementioned facts, we find that punishment imposed on the appellant was not fully justified and we partially accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of punishment and modify it to the punishment of reduction/reversion to a lower post in time scale of B‑7 for a period of one year (plus whatever amount has been recovered from him till the date of hearing and direct the Department to stop any future recovery.

6. No order for cost. Parties be informed. H.B.T./ 22/ Sr.F Order accordingly