' The appeal brings in challenge the impugned orders dated 31-10-2001 vide which the appellants was dismissed from service. He filed departmental appeal/representation, which was dismissed through order dated 8-5-2003 hence the present appeal in this Tribunal.
2. As per facts relevant to the present appeal, the appellant, who is Exh.-PA. In Punjab Tex Book Board, Lahore (Corporation's Employee) was proceeded against under RSO, on the following allegations:-- "(1) In the investment under Board's account, it has been observed that 7 days Short Term Deposits
(STDs) @5% during the financial years 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 were made in various banks.
These investments instead remained unattended for longer periods i.e. From 30 days to six months as a result of which the Board suffered a loss because if the same had been invested in the shape of TDRs for three months or six months a higher rate of profit i.e. 12% to 14% could have been earned.
(2) Similarly investments were also made in the shape of TDRs in different banks for a period of 3 months during the same financial years. These investments remained unattended from six months to one year causing a loss to the Board.
(3) It has been observed that there was improper maintenance of the investment Register wherein a return on investment has not been shown. Even the rate at which the investments were made had not been depicted in the investment register. The bank statements are also missing which precluded the possibility of a cross cheque/reconciliation of investments with the Banks.
(4) It has been observed that TDRs were on cash and transferred to other banks on STDs basis for 7 days and again converted into TDRs for three months. Reasons for doing so and the authority under whose orders such conversions were made have not been recorded,
(5) It has also been observed that terms deposit (TDRs) in the Bank of Punjab were reinvested elsewhere with only a gap of 3 to 4 days which indeed renders the transaction dubious in addition to the loss suffered by the Board in doing so.
(6) The investment register of Sales Depot has not been properly maintained as the detail of profit and the rate has not been shown on the transaction. Four investments amounting to Rs.66,00,000 were made in HBL, Darbar Market Branch in the shape of TDRs for a period of five years but the profit was collected on 3 months basis. The profit earned on these investments has not been shown in the register.
(7) STDs for 7 days @ 5% remained unattended for upto 6 months with HBL/UBL, which if invested for 6 months could have earned a proper rate of profit. Here too, the Sales Depot Account TDRs were converted to STDs and again into TDRs without assigning any reason and without the orders of the competent authority..
(8) It has been observed that huge investment were made in HBL, Landa Bazar, Lahore and MCB, Rawalpindi despite the fact that the Board had no business in these areas.. The accounts opened with MCB, Rawalpindi was @ 16% which was later reduced to 11% without assigning any reason and an amount of Rs.3,29,588 was deducted out of the profit by raising a debit voucher to Account No. PLS .4798. No reference was made to MCB for recovery of less profit which caused a huge loss to the Board.
(9) During the financially years 1996-97, 1998-99, investments in 9 different banks and as much as in 32 branches were made. You are required to show the orders of the competent authority under whose orders these accounts were opened and closed and also explain when the balances were withdrawn from the banks and where these were kept. You also provide the bank statements of at least one year last of all the said branches with the amount of investment and profit rectified."
' Inquiry was held through an inquiry committee consisting of Secretary of the Board and Director (Finance) of the Board. Allegations levelled against the appellant were found to have been proved.
It was found that large scale financial irregularities were committed by the appellant, although precise loss caused was left to the Audit party to determine. Consequently, the appellant was dismissed from service under orders of the competent authority.
3. Learned counsel of the appellant has addressed his arguments maintaining that in accordance with the grade and status of the appellant, he being in BS-17 the Chairman, Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore, could not proceed against him and could not impose upon him the penalty of dismissal from service as no such powers were available to the Chairman under the law for proceedings against Board's employees in BS-17 and above. It is stated that the appellant was in BS-17. It is further pointed out that role of the appellant was that of a P.A., he was not supposed to make any deposits or investments in the banks at various rates and that the appellant only acted upon the orders of his superiors while entering into transactions and investment deals with the banks including TDRs and STDs etc. It is also pointed out that the appellant did not commit any irregularity in the maintenance of investment register or in investment in various banks and that the appellant had no Accounts responsibility in accordance with the charter of his duties. It is next' pointed out that there was no evidence against the appellant about any irregularity and that there was no witness available against the appellant and that proceedings were held against the appellant by the inquiry committee in unilateral manner. It is next contended that in accordance with law, inquiry was required to be completed within 25 days, whereas inquiry was completed after about 5-6 months and findings of the inquiry committee being time-barred, any outcome of such time- barred findings shall be of no legal effect and consequence. It is also pointed out that no material loss etc. Was proved against the appellant in consequence or inquiry proceedings and that proceedings were also conducted out of mala fide. It is further pointed out that the appellant had earned a letter of appreciation and has rendered 33 years service and that he could not have been dismissed on the basis of single lapse if at all, it was conceded that the appellant had been inefficient while handling investment accounts of the Board.
4. The appeal is opposed by the respondents. Mr. Muhammad Arif Raja, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent/Chairman, Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore. It is maintained by learned counsel for the respondent that in accordance with the existing delegation of powers, the Chairman, Punjab Text Book BOard, Lahore was authorized to take action as competent authority in respect of the Board's employees in BS-16 and below and that the appellant being P.A. Was basically an employe in BS-16 and that he had earned BS-17 by virtue of move-over and that as law move-over pay scale was never considered real grade of a civil servant or a Corporation employee. It is further stated that the Chairman, Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore was, therefore, competent to take action against the appellant. It is also contended that the appellant was fully associated with the inquiry proceedings, inquiry was properly, conducted. Inquiry committee was constituted on 20-4-2001 to look into the allegations of serious irregularities committed by the appellant. It is next maintained that there was sufficient documentary evidence available to prove the commission of various irregularities on the part of the appellant and that this record was taken into consideration, the appellant was given opportunity to contradict that record, but he failed to do sd and that in accordance with the findings of the inquiry committee allegations were proved against the appellant. It is stated further that the Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore had an investment fund of Rs.2.00 Billion, which was scattered by the appellant in 32 Bank branches with ulterior motives. Moreover, the appellant was supposed to renew the TDRs after given periods, but he did not do so and resultantly, the Board suffered huge financial loss and apparently, the appellant was beneficiary in connivance with the concerned bank staff. It is also maintained that the appellant could not say that he was P.A. And did not handle investment work. Actually he had been doing this work for 18 long years, he knew this job, he had accepted this responsibility and he never raised any objection that he should not be given this duty. It is also pointed out that the audit had pointed out serious irregularities in the maintenance of the investment account and changes from TDRs to STDs and vice versa and that the appellant failed to give any proper explanation for these changes at his level and without getting orders of his superiors. It is further pointed out that the appellant intentionally resorted to delayed renewals of investment of TDRs in the bank and resultantly, no profit was earned by the Board in consequence of his delay. It is also stated that the appellant made huge investment in certain areas including M.C.B. Rawalpindi, where the profit rate was reduced without assigning any reason and the appellant did not make any reference to the said Bank for recovery of less profit and in this way he caused loss to the Board.
5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that serious allegations of financial I irregularities including loss caused to the Punjab Text Book Board were levelled against the appellant. The inquiry committee looked into the charges and found that the allegations had been. Proved. However, conclusion drawn by the inquiry committee was that the appellant had been guilty of "inefficiency in the performance - of his official duties/function" and also "guilty of misconduct for improper maintenance of record and investment of the.Board funds". I, therefore, find, some contradiction in the findings of the inquiry committee. On the one hand this inquiry committee finds that financial irregularities were committed by the appellant and on the other hand, the inquiry committee concludes that the appellant was guilty of inefficiency and misconduct. It seems that an effort has been made by the inquiry committee to finally keep its findings at low profile. The committee should have worked out the exact loss caused by the appellant to the Board/Government or it should have waited for the final report of the auditors to determine the exact loss caused by the appellant. I do not agree with the appellant that he was innocent as regards his role as P.A. He was entrusted with the task of investment of huge Board- funds. He had been willingly carrying out this task for the last 18 years. The appellant could not, therefore, say that he had nothing. To do with the investment matters of the Board. It appears amazing that the appellant had been dealing with investment funds of Rs.2 Billion as P.A. And had been depositing these funds for investment in a remote area like Rawalpindi with which the Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore had no concern. I do not agree with the appellant that Chairman, Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore could not take action against him because as per internal delegations of powers, the Chairman was authorized to take action against employees in BS-16 and below and the real status of the appellant was that of BS-16 employee. I also do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellant that delay in the completion of inquiry within the stipulated period vitiated the whole proceedings. Warning could have been issued to the inquiry committee by the competent authority for delay. However, delay in the completion of an inquiry cannot render the findings as invalid or illegal. The authority/Chairman, Punjab Text Book Board relied on the findings of the inquiry committee for the purpose of award of punishment of dismissal to the appellant.
According to the conclusion drawn by the inquiry committee the appellant was guilty of "inefficiency and misconduct". This being so, the punishment to be awarded to the appellant should have been awarded in accordance with the conclusion of the inquiry committee, particularly; when the authority has exclusively passed the impugned order on the basis of that conclusion without expressing its own view or without giving any further findings. Therefore, considering these facts, the punishment of dismissal from service under the RSO is converted into that of compulsory retirement. The impugned orders shall stand modified accordingly. It is however, observed that exact loss suffered by the Board if any may also be worked out in consequence of detailed audit and if the appellant was found to be responsible for the loss at any stage, he could be subjected to recovery at any time in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.