' MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN JHAWARI (MEMBER-II).--This appeal has been submitted under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
2. Brief facts are that the appellant was posted as Taxation Officer in the Municipal Corporation Bahawalpur and he remained therefrom 30-10-1997 to 30-10-1998. During his posting, an embezzlement in the funds of Municipal Corporation was detected by the audit authorities in the collection of tax on transfer of immovable properly for the year 1997-1998 against Malik Muhammad Pervaiz, Tax Clerk, Municipal Corporation, Bahawalpur and a case registered against Malik Muhammad Pervaiz, Tax Clerk with Anti-Corruption Establishment.
3. The respondent No,2 initiated the departmental proceedings against the appellant under the Punjab Local Council Services (E&D) Rules, 1990 on account of above financial loss caused to Municipal Corporation Bahawalpur. The respondent No,3 issued a charge-sheet to the appellant and Mr. Saleem Ahmad khan, Accounts Officer, Municipal Corporation Bahawalpur was appointed as enquiry officer. The respondent No,3 imposed the major penalty of reduction to 3 steps/steps/stages below in time scale upon the appellant and forwarded the case to respondent No,2. The respondent No,1 called the appellant on 8-8-2001 for personal hearing after giving show- cause notice for major penalty and ultimately the appellant was imposed major penalty of reduction in rank from BS-16 to BS-14 vide order under appeal dated 29-1-2002. Thereafter, the appellant filed a departmental appeal which could not succeed. Hence, the present appeal.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that impugned orders are contrary to the law and facts and liable to be set aside. As to charge No,2, it was said that the appellant issued receipt books to the Tax Clerk without any authority from the administration of Municipal Corporation Bahawalpur. The appellant repeatedly explained before the inquiry officer and also to the respondents that there was delegation of powers in Municipal Corporation Bahawalpur in this respect. The Taxation Officer who remained posted before the appellant in the Municipal Corporation Bahawalpur also used to issue the receipt books and the same practice was exercised by the appellant.
5. Comments were called from the respondents, wherein they have submitted that during the enquiry, it was found that the appellant had been negligent and inefficient because due to his inefficiency during his posting as Taxation Officer in Municipal Corporation Bahawalpur, a huge embezzlement took place. According to the respondents, the working of the property clerk was not supervised by the appellant properly due to which embezzlement took place; that he had misused the authority while issuing receipt books to the property clerk that the used receipt books were not properly counted while issuing new receipt books and the appellant was found inefficient due to which embezzlement took place. As a result of the enquiry, the charge of inefficiency was proved against the appellant whereupon he was awarded major penalty. It was also emphasized by the respondents that according to Rule 10 of Punjab Local Councils (Accounts) Rules, 1981, the Chairman or an officer authorized by him was the custodian of the receipt books. This rule further provided that before issuing new books, certificate from the Head of the Accounts Branch was required to the effect that the income recovered through used receipt books had, been duly credited.
6. Arguments heard and record perused. During the enquiry lack of supervision amounting to inefficiency was proved against the appellant. The appellant was not legally competent to issue receipt books without having authorization in his favour from the Chairman. If a wrong practice was in vogue it was the duty of the appellant to put the things on the right track. One mistake does not justify another mistake. Due to the inefficiency and negligence of the appellant, the Municipal Corporation Bahawalpur sustained a huge loss of Rs,62,9,311.25, therefore, the major penalty of reduction in rank i,e, from BS-16 to BS-14 was imposed upon the appellant. Since, the charge of inefficiency was proved against the appellant, therefore, I do not find any illegality having been committed by the Departmental Authority in awarding the major penalty to the appellant.
Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the departmental authorities are upheld and maintained.
7. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.