' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- Appellant Abdul Qayyum Adeel was an Assistant Accounts Officer in the District Accounts Office, Bahawalpur in BPS-17. On 22-3-2000 he was charge-sheeted under Rule 3(a) and (b) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 by Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Auditor-General of Pakistan in his capacity as an Authorized officer. Following charges were levelled against him:-- "(a) You issued a Pension Payment Order bearing No,8556 in favour of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz who had impersonated as a PTC Teacher. He was allowed net pension of Rs,990.39 p.m. And commutation of Rs,3,12,768.34. According to Education Department, no PTC Teacher named Mr. Muhammad Nawaz retired from Government Elementary School, Machhran. The above named individual however, managed to withdraw an amount of Rs,1,12,000 from account No,SA-2746 out of the total amount of Rs,3,12,768.34 drawn fraudulently. Thus, you failed to apply the prescribed checks noted under para.39 of the Pension manual with regard to disposed of pension cases, to verify the genuineness of the claimant;
(b) The pension papers were presented over the forged signatures of the School Headmaster and the D.D.E.O. Thus, you violated the instructions contained at para.39 of the Pension Manual;
(c) You allowed the Senior Auditor to hand over the Service Book of the pensioner to an unauthorized person;
(d) You failed to observe the checks prescribed for verification of leave entitlement for encashment of L.P.R. And 25 years qualifying service for pension;
(e) You failed to comply with the provisions of paras.3 and 4 of the Pension Manual (Chapter-I);
(f) You failed to adhere to the instructions contained in CSR 939;
(4) By reasons of the above you appear to be guilty of inefficiency and misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(a) and (b) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, which may involve the imposition of one or more penalties, including the penalty of "Dismissal from Service", as prescribed under Rule 4 of the said Rules."
2. Mr. Abdul Sattar, Additional Accountant-General was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. In his inquiry report dated 31-5-2000 the Inquiry Officer exonerated the appellant of all the charges levelled against him. However, the Authorized Officer did not agree with the Inquiry Officer. He issued a show-cause notice to the appellant on 30-6-2000 in which it was stated that the charges were proved against him. The appellant was required to show cause by this notice as to why the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. This notice was resisted by the appellant. The proceedings culminated into an order dated 8-1-2001 by which the appellant was compulsorily retired from service. He was also directed to pay an amount of Rs,52,000. Against this order the appellant filed a departmental representation on 3-2-2001. Receiving no reply to his departmental representation he filed the present appeal in this Tribunal on 12-6-2001 praying for setting aside the impugned order of his compulsory retirement and reinstatement in service with back benefits.
3. In their objections it is stated by the respondents that the departmental appeal filed by the appellant was rejected on 16-10-2001. On merits it is stated that pension papers of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz PTC Teacher were fake and the appellant instead of sending such application back to the department for its verification, as required by para.3 of the Manual of Pension, issued Pension Pay Order (PPO). The contention of the respondents is that the charges levelled against the appellant were fully proved, therefore, he was awarded penalty in question after observing all the legal formalities.
4. Today we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed a judgment of this Tribunal dated 12-9-2003 passed in Appeal No,528(L)(C.S.) of 2000. This appeal was filed by Haji Muhammad Khalil, a senior Auditor in the office of the District Accounts Officer, Bahawalpur. The charge against said Haji Muhammad Khalil was in respect of PPO bearing No,8556 issued in favour of Muhammad Nawaz, PTC Teacher. In the present case als.o the same charge relating to issuance of PPO No,8556 in the name of Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, PTC Teacher has been levelled against the appellant. Haji Muhammad Khalil was dismissed from service vide order dated 7-2-2000. His dismissal order was set aside by this Bench vide its aforementioned judgment, dated 12-9-2003 (the judgment was recorded by Mr. Moazzam Hayat, Member). It was observed in the judgment that one Muhammad Waryam, District Accounts Officer, was a privy to the transaction involving Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, PTC Teacher in whose favour bogus pension papers had been issued. Muhammad Waryam was exonerated by the Provincial Government. It was held by us that Haji Muhammad Khalil had been discriminated as on the same charge Muhammad Waryam was exonerated whereas he was dismissed from service. It was observed by us that in the case of Haji Muhammad Khalil Article' 25 of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which says that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law was violated. A direction was issued to the respondents who are respondents in the present appeal also, to consider the entire disciplinary proceedings held against Muhammad Waryam and then decide the case of Haji Muhammad Khalil afresh. The present appeal filed by Abdul Qayum Adeel arises out of the same facts. He is, therefore, entitled to same treatment. His case also deserves reconsideration in the light of the case against Muhammad Waryam which was ultimately dropped by the Provincial Government.
6. An Authorized Officer is fully competent to reach his own conclusion after going through the inquiry proceedings conducted by an Inquiry Officer. He is fully empowered to disagree with the report of the Inquiry officer. But the rules of justice require that in case of difference of opinion an Authorized Officer must give solid reasons 'for his disagreement with the. Inquiry Officer. We have perused the show-cause notice dated 30-6-2000 issued by the Authorized Officer to the appellant.
An effort was made by the Authorized Officer to give his own reasons for not endorsing the report of the Inquiry Officer. But in our view the reasons given by him were not convincing. He did not mention in his report the treatment which had been given to Muhammad Waryam by the Provincial Government. Only certain facts, which had emerged during the course of inquiry, were highlighted by him. The Inquiry Officer on the same facts had found the appellant not guilty. Thus, the Authorized Officer was required to give convincing reasons for arriving at a conclusion not consistent with the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. We are of the view that sufficient reasons had not been given by the Authorized Officer in setting aside report of the. Inquiry Officer.
As such the competent authority was not justified in recording the impugned order on the basis of such recommendation. Even otherwise the competent authority while deciding the matter should have looked into the report of the Inquiry Officer. Since it was not done, therefore, the rules of justice and fair play were not observed by him.
7. For the above reasons we hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly accepted and the impugned order set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the entire disciplinary proceedings held against aforementioned Muhammad Waryam and also against Haji Muhammad Khalil and then decide the case of the appellant afresh, preferably within a period of three months, if so desired.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.