Petitioner served in State Life Insurance Corporation as Area General Manager/Zonal Head, Sialkot Zone and retired from service on 3-9-1996. A sum of Rs,77,397, according to the petitioner, was deducted from petitioner's pension on the ground that amount of medical bills could not be paid to the petitioner as he was not given treatment by an appointed doctor/consultant of State Life Insurance Corporation.
2. Order dated 26-3-1999 passed by State Life insurance Corporation was assailed before Wafaqi Mohtasib vide Complaint No,L/10228 of 1999, dated 18-11-1999. The learned Wafaqi Mohtasib concluded after hearing the parties, that State Life Insurance Corporation could not have decducted the amount from the pension of the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved of a finding dated 2-4-2000 of the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib, State Life Insurance Corporation/respondent No,3 submitted a representation under Article 32 of the Establishment of Officer of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 before the President of Pakistan. The President vide order dated 15-3-2001 was pleased to accept the representation and finding recorded vide order dated 2-4-2000 Wafaqi Mohtasib were set aside.
4. Aggrieved of the order passed by the President of Pakistan, under consideration petition was submitted in which Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan was called upon to assist the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Federation of Pakistan have been heard today.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the President of Pakistan ought to have passed a speaking order and should have given reasons for setting aside the findings of the Wafaqi Mohtasib, which was not done and as such, the impugned order was an illegal order and was liable to be set aside. Prayer was made for remitting the matter to the President. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that amount was deducted from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner when it was found that there was an over-writing in quantities of medicines, fictitious prescriptions were utilized by the petitioner and payment was made to an unapproved doctor and it was urged before the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib that these were the grounds on which deduction was made from pensionary dues of the petitioner but the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib had not attended to these aspect of the case and the President was justified in setting aside the findings. It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, President was not required to give a detailed finding as the findings recorded by the Wafaqi Mohtasib were defective on the face of it.
7. A sum of Rs,77,397 which the petitioner had obtained as medical bills was deducted from petitioner's pension dues after his retirement when it was found that payment was obtained by the petitioner by presenting prescriptions of an unapproved doctor and prescriptions were also manipulated, inasmuch as, the quantities of medicines were overwritten. When the complaint was taken up by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib, the State Life Insurance Corporation pointed out these facts to learned Wafaqi Mohtasib but he did not take these aspects of the matter into consideration while recording the findings. The petitioner had obtained payment against medical bills in an unethical manner and was not entitled to the amount, which he had unlawfully received from State Life Insurance Corporation/respondent. The President, therefore, had rightly set aside the findings of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and keeping in view the background in which excess amount was obtained by the petitioner in an unethical manner, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
8. Dismissed.