Find a Lawyer

(a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (1X of 1974)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.6‑‑Embezzlement of funds‑‑Charge of‑‑Regular enquiry resulting in imposition of penalty‑‑Plea of civil servant regarding practice of loaning of money from one Head of Account to another Head of Account, held, was against provisions of any rule or instruction of Government‑‑No malice and prejudice on behalf of Enquiry Officer, Authorized Officer and competent Authority was established on record‑‑Infliction of penalty of recovery compared to gravity of charge would incline to lenient side‑‑No ground to interfere with order passed by Authority were shown to exist‑‑Appeal would not be competent in view of lenient view already taken by competent Authority.

Ch. Muhammad Akram Zahid for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun District Attorney for Respondents.

-‑‑ Ikramul Haq, Headmaster, Government District Public High School, Narwala Bangla, Faisalabad, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order, dated 28‑5‑1985 passed by the Secretary Education, Government of the Punjab vide which the recovery of Rs.9,908.65 was to be effected against the appellant. The Government of the Punjab through the Secretary, Education Department, Lahore, the Secretary Education, Punjab, Lahore and the District Accounts Officer have been impleaded as respondents Nos.l, 2 and 3 respectively by the appellant.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 28‑5‑1985 may be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was‑charge‑sheeted as follows:‑

"That the appellant lkramul Haq while posted as Headmaster, Government Pakistan Model High School, Faisalabad.

Charge No.l were transferred from Govt. Pakistan Model High School, Faisalabad to Govt. Jamia Siddiqia High School, Chak No.316/ G.B. (Faisalabad) but you did not join there and deliberately defied the lawful orders of your transfer dated 28‑8‑1979 and as such you are wilfully absent from the station of your present posting uptil now.

Charge No.2 did not hand over the charge of School articles/ record of the office of the Headmaster, Government Pakistan Model High School, Faisalabad to Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Salim, Headmaster your successor who joined on 1‑9‑1979.

Charge No.3 have drawn the following amounts from students funds, but the amounts so drawn, were not paid to the actual payees. Thus you are found guilty of embezzlement of Rs.542.

Charge No.4 have drawn a sum of Rs.900 out of the School Union Fund on 1‑8‑1979 as loan towards contingency for the repairs of Electricity. But no demand/voucher or receipt is on the school record. Thus you embezzled the sum of ‑Rs.900.

Charge No.5 had drawn Rs.1,745 out of School Union Fund vide Vr. No. 314/1‑16 for the purchase of sports articles during April, May and June 1978. But no stock entry of the articles so purchased is available. You are, therefore, found guilty of misappropriation of Rs.1,745.

Charge No.6 have drawn the following amounts as loan from the various students funds. But the amounts, so drawn, were not accounted for in the relevant registers and not thereafter recovered and deposited in the funds from which loans were taken. You are, therefore, found guilty of misappropriation of Rs.3,986,75.

Charge No.7 have paid Rs.46 and Rs.43.30 to one Mr. Abdur Rehman EST on 14‑12‑1978 and 30‑5‑1979 respectively as T.A. and D.A. for the work not concerned with official duty out of School Union Fund unauthorisedly. Thus you are found guilty of misappropriation of Rs.89.20.

Charge No.8. Spent the following amount as detailed below but of Medical Fund levishly in excess of the monthly income of the fund without demand and observance of the necessary coda] formalities. You are, therefore, responsible for an unjustified expenditure of 88.2,339.70.

Charge No.10 have drawn an amount of Rs.700 out of Medical Fund on 18‑8‑1979 during summer vacation without demand/justification. This amount remained with you till 18‑12‑1979 when you deposited the same in the relevant fund under signatures on 18‑12‑1979 while you were no more Headmaster of Government Pakistan Model School, Faisalabad, after 1‑9‑1979. Thus, you are found guilty of temporary embezzlement of Rs.700.

Charge No. 12 have auctioned of your own accord countless wooden and steel articles, old newspapers and used answer books for Rs.1,028 only without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority and observing the codal formalities whereas the sale proceeds deposited in the relevant funds is Rs.380 only. Thus, you are responsible for embezzlement of Rs.648. You have also committed serious irregularity in auctioning the property of the school.

The appellant pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the inquiry was got conducted and on the report of the Inquiry Officer who found all the charges proved against the appellant except charges 9 and 11, the Authorised Officer recommended the case for major penalty. The Secretary Education issued show‑cause notice dated 23‑8‑1982 as to why major penalty may not be inflicted upon the appellant. The appellant responded to the show‑cause notice. Then the appellant was called for personal hearing and the Secretary Education vide order dated 10‑7‑1984 inflicted penalty of recovery of Rs.9,908.65 and in the Endorsement requested DPI to withhold two increments. Subsequently, on Review Petition (Representation) of the appellant the Secretary Education set aside the order, dated 10‑7‑1984 of withholding of two increments while maintaining the major penalty of recovery of Rs.9,908.65 as financial loss caused to the Government by the appellant while issuing the impugned order dated 28‑5‑1985. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant did not embezzle any amount. The learned counsel for the appellant added that according to the prevailing practice' of the schools the income and expenditure of the school was shown in separate Heads of Account. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that on event of any Head of Account becoming short the money was taken as loan from an other account with an intention that whenever the funds would be available the loan would be refunded. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the inquiry is based on the non‑reading and misreading of the evidence and as a result of the same the appellant was inflicted the penalty through the impugned order.

5. Learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the plea of the appellant is misconceived. The learned District Attorney added that the appellant was subjected to regular inquiry and was given ample chance to contest the same and clarify the position but he failed. The learned District Attorney further stated that the Inquiry Officer after conducting proper inquiry against the appellant found him guilty and the Authorised Officer recommended major penalty and the Authority after due consideration and opportunity of personal hearing of the appellant and after giving him the copy of the Inquiry Report inflicted him the penalty. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that actually the penalty was very mild compared to gross misconducts of the appellant who was proved to be reckless in the performance of his duties to the extent of the alleged embezzlement of the funds.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney for the respondents. We have also consulted the relevant record including the written comments of the Respondent Department. The comments of the respondents read with the record disclose that the so‑called practice, if any, regarding loaning of the money from one Head of Account to another Head of the Account is against the provisions of the Rules and at least not legalised by any rule or instruction of the Government. It is also on the record that the Inquiry Officer found that voucher amounting to Rs.200 was not found in the school record and as such the appellant failed to produce any voucher before the Inquiry Officer. The voucher now relied upon by the appellant is of no significance. It is also on the record that the appellant appointed Dispenser without approval of the Director Education and this misconduct has also been proved by the Inquiry Officer. Another misconduct of the appellant has been proved on the record that the appellant visited the school on 5th/6th September, 1979 in the absence of his successor and opened the School Almirah whose keys were with the appellant. The appellant collected some cheques and relocked the Almirah. The District Education Officer banned the entry of the appellant in the school after office hours in the absence of the successor. Actually the Inquiry Officer has found the appellant guilty of the ten out of twelve charges against him with the result that only Charge No.9 and Charge No.II were not proved and rest of the charges were proved against the appellant. The appellant has not been able to show any malice and prejudice on behalf of the Inquiry Officer, Authorised Officer and the Competent Authority and as such no reason to disbelieve. The infliction of penalty of recovery compared to gravity of the charges is inclined to the lenient side. However, it may be clarified that the Secretary Education inflicted only penalty of the recovery of Rs.9,908.65 and merely requested the D.P.I. in the Endorsement of the order, dated 10‑7‑1984 regarding penalty of stoppage of two increments. Before the same could be inflicted ‑by the D.P. I. the Representation/ Review Petition of the appellant was considered and order, dated 28‑5‑1985 was issued by the Secretary Education. As such the orders dated 28‑5‑1985 of the Secretary to be treated to have maintained his orders, dated 10‑7‑1984.

7. Hence we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

A. A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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