' JUSTICE (RTD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN) This is an appeal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Triburial Act, 1973 filed by appellant in person.
2. Relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of the instant appeal are that appellant and many other police officials were on the basis (. Preliminary inquiry proceeded with departmentally on the charges ( misappropriation and embezzlement of Government money. Appella was served with a charge-sheet dated 15-10-1999, alleging therei that:-- "He while posted at different Police Stations of Larkana District as WI-IC prepared the false katcha bills of constabulary staff showing the salary amount total of Rs.1,61,937 with a mala fide intention to defraud the Government. Similarly he received the .Amount from the Accounts Branch SSP Office Larkana with the share connivance of Manzoor Ahmed Kalhoro, Accountant, Rafique Ahmed Chandio, Junior Clerk, Ahmed Nawaz Roonjho Constable of Accounts Branch and Sikandar Ali Chan, Constable of Accounts Branch and kept the amount in his personal custody and personal use for the period from year 1994 to 1999. He also deliberately/intentionally caused loss to the Government by misappropriating a huge amount of Rs.1,61,937 for a long period, as such he admitted and credited the same amount on 18-8-1999 during preliminary enquiry conducted by DSPs.
' In his reply, appellant denied the allegation so also the fact of admission of his guilt and crediting the amount. Ultimately, by order dated 26-10-2000 he was dismissed from service by the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Larkana. On the same set of allegations appellant was -also involved in a criminal case arising out of F.I.R. No.70 of 1999 under sections 420,409/34 P.P.C. And was sent up to stand his trial in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Larkana. He was, however, acquired under section 249-A Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 30-10-2000. After availing departmental remedy, appellant had earlier filed Service Appeal No.83 of 2001 before this Tribunal, which vide consolidated judgment dated 27-12-2001 was allowed, impugned order was set aside, appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service and the matter was remanded for passing fresh orders in the light of acquittal judgment. In compliance to the said judgment, appellant and his colleagues were reinstated in service by D.P.O. Larkana vide order dated 19-3-2002. Their intervening period was treated as leave of kind due. The S.S.P. Larkana also challenged the judgment of this Tribunal in C.P.L.A. Nos.327-K of 2002 to 342-K of 2002 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, which vide judgment dated 25-6-2002 were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
3. Appellant thereafter moved an application 'to the Regional Police Officer, Sukkur requesting for return of amount of Rs.1,61,000 which was allegedly recovered from him and for declaring the intervening period as spent on duty. The said application, however, vide order dated 22-7-2003 was rejected. Hence, this appeal.
4. In support of appeal, appellant appeared in person and argued the matter at length. He also filed written arguments. Appellant apart from the instant case, also raised other factual and legal pleas which have no relevancy to the facts of the present appeal. He mainly contended that an amount of Rs.1,61,000 was recovered from him fraudulently and per force and that since he has been acquitted from the criminal charge by the competent Court of law so also he was exonerated by this Tribunal and has been reinstated in service, therefore, legally and lawfully, he is entitled to the amount forcibly recovered from him. So also to all pay any allowances, under the, rules.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-General supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
6. We have considered the above submissions and perused the material placed on the record. It is an universal truth that man may lie but the circumstances can't. Likewise it is an established principle of law that admitted facts require no proof. Appellant was charge-sheeted that he prepared false katcha bills of salary of constabulary staff to the tune of Rs.1,61,937 and misappropriated the same. However, when such fraudulent withdrawal was detected and preliminary inquiry was conducted he admitted his guilt and credited the said amount on 18-8- 1999. Appellant in para-6 of his reply to the said charge-sheet stated that:-- "Sir, the amount of Rs.1,61,937, said to have been deposited by me being over-drawn, was not actually deposited by me but it was deposited by the Accountant and his concerned staff. I am quite unaware about it. Moreover, the statement was got recorded by worthy DSPs under pressure, I had not given this statement voluntarily at my own accord."
' Likewise in his departmental appeal addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Larkana, for reinstatement in service, he at last para. Of page-5 of the same, stated: "Honourable Sir, since I didn't deposit Rs.1,61,937 before the Inquiry Officers but these Rs. Have been deposited into my accounts from the recovered amount of Accounts Branch staff and showed recovered from me which is contrary to fact. I have mentioned this fact before the then SSP Larkana on 22-10-1999 in response to the received charge-sheet."
' Similar was the stand taken by appellant in para-32 of his earlier service Appeal No.83 of 2001.
7. Perusal of the above extracts from the reply to the charge-sheet, departmental appeal and earlier Appeal No.83 of 2001 filed by the appellant make it abundantly clear that appellant never claimed the said amount as his own. He denied the fact of making such payment and stated that the amount was deposited by the Accountant and his concerned staff. But suddenly after acquittal from the criminal case and reinstatement in service, under the orders of this Tribunal appellant takes U-turn and claimed the amount as his own, which he had earlier disowned, thereby he tried to blow hot and blow cold at the same time. Appellant being Government servant regulated by the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, therefore, it was not open to him under any circumstances to approbate and reprobate in the same breath and change his version at his sweet will according to the situation. Once he disclaimed the amount it did not lie in his mouth to go back and claim, the appellant thus estopped by his own conduct to ask for return of the said amount after such an inordinate delay of 4 years.
8. As ,regards prayer that the intervening period be declared as spent on duty and appellant may be allowed the back-benefits, it is suffice to say that there is nothing on the record to indicate that when appellant was out of service, he did not work anywhere to gain financial benefits. In the similar circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court in a very recent case of Pakistan Automobile Corporation Ltd. v. Mansoorul Haq Solangi, reported as 2004 SCM R 1308, disallowed the back- benefits awarded by the Federal Service Tribunal.
9. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. Announced in open Court.