' Briefly stated the facts leading to appeal are that the appellant was serving as Excise and Taxation Inspector, Rahaimyar Khan, Proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules were initiated against him and he was charge-sheeted on the following allegations:-- "That you in complicity with M/s. M.R. Abbasi, Excise and Taxation Officer Anees Haider, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer and Hamid Raza Shah, Senior Clerk received 541 cases of registration on account of various motor vehicles along with registration fee/token tax , incorporated particulars of these vehicles in the relevant allotment registered, issued acknowledgement slips but did not deposit the amount so recovered into the Government treasury till the matter was noticed by the Director, Excise and Taxation, Bahawalpur, In this way an amount of Rs.11,30,275 defalcated/embezzled by you."
' The appellant submitted reply to the charge, denying the allegations but his plea was not considered satisfactory and after inquiry proceedings he was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 20-4-1999. He preferred departmental appeal. Resultantly, major penalty of dismissal from service was reduced to major penalty of reduction in rank from the post of E&T Inspector to that of Stenographer, the post against which he was originally recruited vide order dated 7-2-2000 which has been impugned in this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has unblemished record of 25 years service. No Government money was embezzled by him. He did not collected any fee in cash and never incorporated entries in the allotment register. The Inquiry Committee also held the MTC responsible for all the mess and no involvement of the appellant is established in any way. It is further argued that the findings of the Inquiry Committee are contrary to the charge-sheet and limits as findings given pertain to supervision over subordinates while in the charge sheet, there was no charge of lack of supervision, vigilance and inefficincy and the original charge of misconduct has not been proved. Reliance has been made on Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dated 24-8-2001 in appeal No.712 of 2000 titled Mr. Muhammad Anis Haider v. Director General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab,
3. Learned District Attorney relied upon the written objections submitted by the respondents and argued that as an immediate supervisory officer, the appellant must have known the lapses of his subordinates. It has further been contended that the appellant had connived with the clerk in embezzling the amount which was proved as the level of Inquiry Committee, Authorized Officer and Authority.
4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant, District Attorney, Departmental Representative and have perused the written objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents.
5. Perusal of record shows that appellant was charge-sheeted for embezzling an amount of Rs.11,30,275 in complicity with his co-accused but the Appellate Authority had himself conceded that the appellant could be held responsible only for lack of supervision and inefficiency to detect mal-practice of his subordinate. In this view of the matter, the appellant has been punished for the charge of inefficiency which had not formed a part of the charge-sheet and thus the impugned order is not sustainable. In the present case, the concerned clerk had been held responsible for collecting cash from the vehicle owners outside the premises of the officer and for embezzling it. It was the duty of the appellant to ensure that Government dues are deposited or not, for which he is responsible only for his period which is less then 6 months whereas all the irregularities were committed in the last 2-/1/2 years or so. No action seems to have been taken by the department against the officials posted in the previous years.
6. In the light of above discussion, the appeal is accepted impugned orders dated 20-4-1999 and 7-2-2000 are set aside. The appellant is reinstated as Excise and Taxation Inspector. Department is at liberty to proceed against the appellant and his predecessors if they have sufficient proof against them. There will be no order as to the costs.