Find a Lawyer

Case No. 385/478 of 1970, decided on 4th May, 1980.

‑‑‑ Disciplinary action‑‑Enquiry Officer holding accused not guilty of charge‑Competent authority not agreeing with findings of enquiry- Reasons for disagreement should be conveyed to accused enabling hint to prepare defence‑Reasons not intimated to accused‑Accused in circumstances, held, materially prejudiced in defence-‑Consequential dismissal order set aside by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

The appellant has impugned the order of the Full Board of Revenue dated 24‑9‑1979 whereby the earlier order dated 22‑2‑1979 of the Senior Merrier, Board of Revenue (Establishment) dismissing the appellant from service was upheld. The appellant eras charged under W. P. Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1960 with negligence which resulted in misappropriation of a large amount of money through wrong verification of entries involving special adhesive stamps.

2. Brief facts of the case are that during the period from 31‑5-1966 to 30‑6‑1966 the appellant worked as Assistant in the Stamp Branch. During this period an embezzlement tee the extent of Rs. 3.82,183.92 took place. The charge against the appellant was that he facilitated one George Francis, the then Stamp Clerk, in misappropriating adhesive stamps to the value quoted above by wrong and unauthorized verification of the accepted treasury challans. The second charge was that he was not competent to authorise his record‑keeper James Yaqoob, Jr. Clerk to check/verify the receipted treasury challans which resulted in farther misappropriation of special adhesive stamp valuing Rs. 64,425.75 by George Francis who was elder brother of James Yaqoob. After being charge‑sheeted an enquiry was ordered and by Mr. Zaka Ullah Naik, the then Secretary (Colonies) in the Board of Revenue was appointed Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report held that no charge was proved against the appellant. Disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer, the competent authority took the decision to impose the penalty of dismissal on the appellant. After issue of show‑cause notice and personal hearing the appellant was duly dismissed from service. Appeal to the Full Board of Revenue was rejected on 24‑9‑1979 and it is that order which is the subject matter of this appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The parties were heard. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that in each of the three separate enquiries, held in the Board of Revenue, George Francis was found to be guilty of the misappropriation. Whereas some negligence, was attributed to the Superintendents, the various Assistants, the appellant being one of them, were wholly exonerated. The appellant was punished on the ground that his negligence in duty facilitated the defalcation by George Francis, although he was not concerned personally with any physical checking but only to see that entries in the register are responded under this in the disposed of treasury receipts. This limited duty is not of an audit type. According to the learned counsel the authorities concerned were convinced that George Francis practiced his techniques in an expert manner for 11 years. It is inconceivable that during this period all the Assistants who variously worked with him were hand in glove with him. On behalf of the respondent Department it was urged that an experienced Assistant like the appellant could not be in the know of the system of mis appropriation and it was the height of negligence as his part to remain unaware of what George Francis was doing.

4. Aside front the other arguments, we are inclined to place reliance on the report of the Enquiry Officer who was himself Secretary (Colonies in the Board of Revenue and can be expected to be fully conversant with the extent of responsibility thrown on the appellant in connection with his work in the Stamp Branch. In this context the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1447/S of 1968 whereby it was held that if it is decided to disagree with the Enquiry Officer exonerating the accused official, reasons for such disagreement should be conveyed to that official so that be could duly prepare his defence. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Appeal No. 15 of 1973. In the instant case the appellant was not informed of the justification which prompted the authority concerned to disagree with the enquiry officer's report. Thus the appellant was materially prejudiced in his defence.

In view of the fact that no valid ground existed for the Full Board of Revenue to ignore the finding of the Enquiry Officer, and that the appellant was apprised of none we accepted the appeal. The order of the appellant's dismissal is, therefore, set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.