Qazi Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui, Member.--The Appellant joined Pakistan Steel as Carpenter w,e,f, 14.2.1976. He rose to the rank of Supervisor in the year 1985 and was finally promoted as Junior Officer in the year 1992, when following charge sheet was issued:-- PAKISTAN STEEL (CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION)
No, A&P/Enq. Cell/2000/119Dated: 17.1.2000.
Mr. Aqueel Ahmed, J.0 (Under-suspension), Civil Maint Department, CMD, PAKISTAN STEEL CHARGE SHEET As a result of Special audit on the affairs of Plant Civil Maint Deptt. covering the period from January, 1996 to December, 1996, conducted by Internal Audit Department, Pakistan Steel, it has been revealed that you have committed following irregularities/deviations from the laid down procedure with malafide intention to obtain wrongful gains for yourself and others causing financial loss to Pakistan Steel: that in the case of repair/renovation work of Aluminium Sliding Windows and stairs at Central Food Preparation Shop, you shared preparation of estimates and arranging of quotations. The party from whom the work was shown executed is physically non-existent. Incharge, Food Shop has also confirmed that there is no evidence/document with Food Shop to certify execution of the said work.
In this case Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs, 1,61,850/-
2. Your above act of omission and commission amount to Misconduct as.defined in Chapter VI of PSOSR&R.
3. You are hereby called upon the explanation your conduct, in writing, within 7 days of the receipt of this Charge Sheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you as per rules. It may also be indicated whether you desire to be head in person.
Sd/- (HAMID PERVEZ) Incharge (A&P)"
The Appellant replied the charge-sheet on 21.10.2000 denying the allegations against him and stating that his signatures on the estimate had been obtained by Incharge, C.M. (Muhammad Aslam Khan) and Accountant, C.M. (Sultan), saying that they would themselves get the work of repair/renovation done through their own team; that he did not have anything to do with the obtaining of the quotations, supervision of work in question or carrying out the repair/renovocation work himself or through those working under him.
2. A notice of recovery of Rs, 1,61,850/- was also issued to the Appellant vide letter dated 2.2.2000.
The Appellant denied his liability for the said amount ordered to be recovered from him.
3. Not satisfied with the replies of the Appellant, the competent authority ordered departmental inquiry against the Appellant. Such inquiry was held by an inquiry committee, as per whose findings the estimate, quotation and bills bore the signature of the Appellant. On the basis of such findings, the inquiry committee concluded as under:-- "9. Mr. Aqueel Ahmed, P. No, 023795 of Civil Maintenance Department, was enjoying the designation of Junior Officer although he seems to be indulged by virtue of his note/signature on quotations and bills but the committee is of the opinion that Mr. Aqueel Ahmed, defendant is not beneficiary as in the same case the beneficiary Mr. Sultan Hussain, is already charge sheeted and dismissed."
4. The Appellant was ultimately removed from service vide order dated 27.5.2002 of the competent authority; hence, the Appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 13.8.2002 against rejection of his appeal vide order dated 2.8.2002. The Appellant has prayed that the impugned order of his removal from service, passed by the Respondent No, 2 on 27.5.2002, and the order of rejection of his appeal dated 2.8.2002 be set-aside and he be reinstated in service or the appeal be remanded for denovo departmental actions as per rules.
5. In the written comments, filed on behalf of the Respondents, the removal of the Appellant from service was held to be justified.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal carefully.
7. The Appellant had taken a number of legal pleas in the memo of appeal but his learned counsel did not press the appeal on merit and argued that the case of Appellant was identical with the case of Karimuddin Appellant in Appeal No, 394(K)CE/2002, who had, like the Appellant, only signed certain documents at the instance of other officers, without having any financial gain; that the Appellant was involved, advertently or inadvertently, in the financial scam, without having any acting role in the repair or renovation work, which was got done by others; hence, he was not liable to major penalty of removal from service; that the Appellant had a service of 26 years, having otherwise, an unblemished service record; hence, he urged that major penalty of the Appellant of removal from service be modified to minor penalty like that of Karimuddin, whose case was identical with the case of the Appellant and whose major penalty of dismissal from service was modified by the Tribunal to minor penalty, vide judgment dated 5.12.2005.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents has relied on the inquiry proceedings and contended that complicity of the Appellant in the embezzlement of a huge amount was fully proved, therefore, according to him the penalty awarded to the Appellant was justified.
9. We have considered the request of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant from all aspects. The Appellants had a long service of 26 years and with otherwise, unblemished service record. The role assigned to him and proved against him during the inquiry proceedings was that of signing certain documents at the instance of other officers. As held in the inquiry report the Appellant was not beneficiary of the financial scam. His case is identical with the case of Karimuddin, whose major penalty of dismissal was converted to withholding of his three increments for a period of three years. The case of the Appellant so far as penalty is concerned, on better footings than that of Karimuddin, who was awarded the penalty of dismissal, whereas, the Appellant had been awarded the penalty of removal from service.
10. Since the case of Appellant is identical with the case of Karimuddin, and there are other mitigating circumstances also in his case, as mentioned above, we are inclined to modify his penalty of removal from service to a minor penalty of withholding of his three increments for a period of three years. Order accordingly. Resultantly, the impugned order is set-aside with direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Appellant in service from the date of his removal from service.
The intervening period be treated as the leave that may be due to the Appellant.
11.No order as to costs.
12.Copies of judgment be sent to the parties under registered cover and to the relevant quarters under Rule 21 of Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974.