Misappropriation and embezzlement

2021 SCMR 1560 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Dismissal from serviceMisappropriation and embezzlement

Service Tribunal converting penalty for dismissal from service into stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect

Propriety

Respondent-accused (postal clerk) was granted personal hearing

Sufficient material was available on the record which established that the respondent was granted various opportunities to defend himself

If in the opinion of the respondent his personal hearing was "meaningless", it could not be held that a hearing was not granted and the rule of audi alteram partem was violated

If the hearing was not up to the satisfaction of the respondent or he did not get the relief that he was expecting, the appellant-department could not be held to have condemned him unheard

Respondent was proceeded against under the law

Nowhere had the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings against him stated that they were biased or were being conducted improperly; he participated in the proceedings and was able to give his defence, which was left to the appellant-department to accept or not accept

Not only a regular inquiry but a preliminary inquiry was also held against the respondent

Admittedly appellant-department suffered a financial loss of Rs. 11,09,500, which could have been prevented but for the alleged loss of or inability of the respondent to account for the Postal Payment Order (PPO) Paid Vouchers

Postal Payment Orders (PPOs) were documents that were of fundamental importance and needed to be proved, or if they had been lost, independent evidence should have been produced to show that the payments were made against surrendered PPOs which had been cancelled, retained and relevant particulars thereof had been entered in the relevant records

Respondent was also required to present the vouchers against which PPO payments were made to authenticate such payments

No such evidence/material/documents were placed on record

Appellant-department gave several opportunities to the respondent to prove his innocence, but he failed to do the same

Respondent in return deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000, which, amounted to an admission on his part of the misappropriation

When the Service Tribunal, on one hand, held that the respondent was indeed responsible for the loss caused to the appellant-department, it could not assume the role of the competent authority and hold that embezzlement or misappropriation was not proved

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set-aside and as a consequence departmental penalty of dismissal from service was restored.

2021 PLC(CS) 1487 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Dismissal from serviceMisappropriation and embezzlement

Service Tribunal converting penalty for dismissal from service into stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect

Propriety

Respondent-accused (postal clerk) was granted personal hearing

Sufficient material was available on the record which established that the respondent was granted various opportunities to defend himself

If in the opinion of the respondent his personal hearing was "meaningless", it could not be held that a hearing was not granted and the rule of audi alteram partem was violated

If the hearing was not up to the satisfaction of the respondent or he did not get the relief that he was expecting, the appellant-department could not be held to have condemned him unheard

Respondent was proceeded against under the law

Nowhere had the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings against him stated that they were biased or were being conducted improperly; he participated in the proceedings and was able to give his defence, which was left to the appellant-department to accept or not accept

Not only a regular inquiry but a preliminary inquiry was also held against the respondent

Admittedly appellant-department suffered a financial loss of Rs. 11,09,500, which could have been prevented but for the alleged loss of or inability of the respondent to account for the Postal Payment Order (PPO) Paid Vouchers

Postal Payment Orders (PPOs) were documents that were of fundamental importance and needed to be proved, or if they had been lost, independent evidence should have been produced to show that the payments were made against surrendered PPOs which had been cancelled, retained and relevant particulars thereof had been entered in the relevant records

Respondent was also required to present the vouchers against which PPO payments were made to authenticate such payments

No such evidence/material/documents were placed on record

Appellant-department gave several opportunities to the respondent to prove his innocence, but he failed to do the same

Respondent in return deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000, which, amounted to an admission on his part of the misappropriation

When the Service Tribunal, on one hand, held that the respondent was indeed responsible for the loss caused to the appellant-department, it could not assume the role of the competent authority and hold that embezzlement or misappropriation was not proved

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set-aside and as a consequence departmental penalty of dismissal from service was restored.

2013 YLR 719 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Suit for declaration and injunctionAd interim injunction, grant ofMisappropriation and embezzlement

Plaintiff claimed that defendant was his employee who purchased suit plot from the money of plaintiff misappropriated and embezzled by him

Plaintiff filed statement along with which he had attached transfer letter according to which plot in issue was transferred in favour of defendant

Validity

Plaintiff apprehended that defendant might not create third party interest in plot in question

High Court issued notice to defendant and in the meanwhile directed him not to create any third party interest in the plot in question

High Court directed the authorities to mark caution on the file of plot in question till further orders of court

Ad interim injunction was granted in circumstances.