' JUSTICE (RETD.) RIAZ KAYANI (CHAIRMAN)---Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah, Former Accountant. Town Committee Fort Abbas, now posted at Tehsil Municipal Administration, Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar, has come in appeal, bringing in challenge order dated 1-1-2004 whereby his appeal was rejected by the appellate committee thereby maintaining the order dated 14-7-2003 passed by the Chairman, Punjab Local Government Board, his authority, arraigned as respondent No,2, imposing major penalty of reduction by three stages in time scale with immediate effect under the provisions of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Punjab. Local Council Service (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1990.
2. Appellant while serving as Accountant Town Committee, Fort Abbas was served with the charge- sheet, containing the following charges:-- "Now therefore, you Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Shah (BS-11) Accountant, Town Committee, Fort Abbas is hereby charged as under:--
(i) That in your tenure as Accountant Town Committee, Fort Abbas, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Lands Officer and Mr. Tahir Mehmood, Building Inspector, Town Committee, Fort Abbas embezzled an amount of Rs,7,98,549/88 due to your negligence in the performance of your obligatory duties.
(ii) That you failed to perform your duties efficiently as Accountant. You had not scrutinized and verified the receipts issued etc. And Challan regarding deposit of money in the TC Accounts, due to which the above-said officials succeeded to embezzle the said amount.
(iii) The said embezzlement had been made due to your negligence and inefficiency and with your connivance and knowledge".
' Appellant denied the charges stating that he was not Incharge of the Accounts Section whose charge vested with the Chairman therefore he was not responsible for any embezzlement reflected in the charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer vide his report did not agree with the explanation of the appellant and held him responsible for negligence and recommended penalty. The authority after hearing the appellant imposed the penalty now impugned which was also upheld by the appellate authority.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant once again reiterated the stance taken by the appellant in reply to the charge-sheet. Conversely, learned District Attorney supported the impugned orders.
4. I have heard the respective counsels and also perused the record.
5. I have gone through the Local Councils (Accounts) Rules, 1981 whereby Rule 10(4) is relevant to the facts and is reproduced for facility of reference:-- "When all receipts in a Receipt Book have been used, the head of the Accounts Department or Branch shall record a certificate on the Receipt Book to the effect that all the income recovered through the various receipts have been duly credited. The Receipt Book shall thereafter be kept in the personal custody of the Chairman or the officer authorized by him in this behalf".
' The provision of law clearly shows that it was the final responsibility of the appellant to receive the Receipt Book and ensure that income received is credited to the Account of the Department. He miserably failed to do so and therefore was rightly held to be negligent.
6. Now coming to the penalty imposed, it has been conceded by the learned District Attorney that the same is not in accordance with the Punjab Local Councils Service (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1990. I have gone through rule 6(b) of the aforesaid Rules which states that one of the major penalty shall be reduction to a lower grade or post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale.
The import of law is very clear and leave no ambiguity. The authority on the other hand has imposed the penalties of reduction by three stages in time scale. To this extent order of the authority which merges in order of the appellate authority is illegal. To bring it in accord with law reduction by three stages in time scale is reduced to the major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale and further to abide by the provisions of Civil Service Rules (Punjab), it shall ensure for one year from the date of order of the authority viz. 14-7-2003. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.