M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).------In this case, the appellant, an Ex-- Storekeeper of Mayo Hospital, Lahore, is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Medical Superintendent of Mayo Hospital dated 8-5-1979 removing him from ,service and the order of the Medical Superintendent, dared 15- 5-1979 dismissing' his appeal against the same.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was charge. Sheeted for inefficiency and corruption on the following counts :--
(i) Verified a supply bill of Rs. 1,216 in respect of Messrs Rana Abdul Rauf, Contractor, although no Indented item against that bill was received in the General Store of this Hospital and yet the payment was made to the said Contractor by the office through a false ball.
(ii) You verified two bills of Mosrs Pascara Electrogas Appliances, amounting to Rs. 21,350 each being cost of seven room heaters on two different dates indicating separate page numbers of the Stock Register maintained by you, although material against one bill was received by you.
The appellant replied to the charge-sleet on 8th March 1979. On 14th March 1979, Mr. Abdul Hamid Saqib, Statistical Officer was appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations. The enquiry report was sub--mitted by the Enquiry Officer on 1-4-1979, according to which the appellant was exonerated of Charge No. 1 but was held guilty of Charge No. 11. He was accordingly served with a show-cause notice on 18-4-1979 for a major penalty by the Deputy Medical Superintendent. Reply to the show-cause notice was submitted on 28-4-1979. The competent authority, i.e. The Deputy Medical Superintendent, after granting personal hearing to the appellant on 7-5-1979, found the explanation and the defence of the appellant absolutely unsatisfactory and directed his removal from service. An appeal dated 8-5-1979 preferred by the appellant to the Medical Superintendent was also rejected on 15-5-1979. A revision petition dated 24-6-1969 and an amended revision petition preferred by the appellant to the.. Government remained undisposed till the institution of this appeal before this Tribunal on 7-1-1980.
3. The learned counsel, Ch. Muhammad Masud, appearing for the appellant has contended that the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice served upon the appellant were issued by the Deputy Medical Superintendent with the approval of the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, as was apparent from the description of his office. Both these documents were placed on record. He submitted that it was not a mere formality but had been done in persuance to the orders of the Medical Superintendent dated 14-1-1979 which contains the direction : "No orders for appointments to any post in the hospital or of suspension/removal from service will be issued without approval from the undersigned. Further no disciplinary case Shall be instituted against any member of hospital without my consent/approval". The appellant submitted that admittedly, according to the relevant provisions contained in the Delegation of Power Rules, the Deputy Medical Superinten--dent has been prescribed as the competent authority. Thus the Deputy Medical Superintendent in so far as he acted with the approval or authority of the Medical Superintendent, while issuing the charge-sheet and show-cause notice acted in utter disregard of the aforesaid provisions and thus the orders passed by him were grossly arbitrary and lie never exercised his independent mind and the orders were, therefore, vitiated on account of the aforesaid illegality. The appellant also submitted that he had been cleared of the major charge with regard to the electric appliances (room coolers) and the allegation regarding verification of the bill amounting to Rs. 1,216 in lieu of supply of soda ash by Messrs Rana Abdul Rauf, Contractor, was nothing but a bona fide mistake which did not call for a major punishment. It was further submitted that the verification of the bill was made after a considerable time of the receipt of the bulk of goods which included the times in question as well. It was pointed out that as soon as the mistake was discovered, Messrs Rana Abdul Rauf readily accepted the mistake and made good the loss to the Department, It was further submitted that the payment had been made after verification by the Administrative Officer and the Deputy Medical Super--intendent who are also required to verify and check the supply themselves. As such the imposition of extreme penalty on the appellant was wholly uncalled for.
4. Mr. Muhammad Khan Khattak, Administrative Officer and Mr. Zahoor Hussain Steward Mayo Hospital appearing for the Department, in rebuttal submitted that where was a little chance of bona fide mistake inasmuch as in the bill dated 10-12-1978 the item of soda ash supplied at Serial No. 1 and in fact the entry was carried from the corresponding entry in the stock register prepared by the appellant on the basis of actual receipts. Thus mistake if any had occurred at the time of taking the stocks for which there was little chance of any mistake. With regard to the legal objections, it was submitted by the Department that the description "Deputy Medical Superintendent for Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore" was merely a formal defect in the description otherwise the case never reached the Medical Superintendent at any stage and thus the objection had no merit, whatsoever. With these submissions it was submitted that the appeal merits rejection.
5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, we find that the objection raised by the appellant was devoid of any substance. The scrutiny of the record revealed that the case at no stage, except the initiation of the action was dealt with by the Medical Superintendent before the imposi--tion of the actual penalty. In the circumstances of the case notwithstanding the formal description in the charge-sheet and show-cause notice, we are satisfied that the order was issued by the Deputy Medical Superintendent but the initial approval for initiating the action was taken from the Medical Superintendent which did not militate against the validity of the proceedings against the appellant. However, on other grounds we find that the appellant has a case. He has been cleared by the Enquiry Officer of the major charge against him. The contention of the appellant regarding bona fide mistake A could not be completely ruled out. In fact the conduct of the appellant has been straightforward inasmuch as he straightaway conceded the mistake and same was also accepted by the contractor and loss was made good. The Department has not brought to our notice any similar failure on the part of the appellant in the past. The personal record of the appellant was also perused by us and his integrity has been commended in positive terms in the past.
In the circumstances we are inclined to accept the explanation of the appellant and accordingly accept this appeal. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the departmental authorities. In our opinion the case called for only a censure and we direct accordingly.