JUDGMENT QAZI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUE MEMBER - The appellant filed this appeal under Section 4 read with Section 6 (sic) 'of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973.
2. Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant having joined the service in the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited, respondent 2, on 01.10.1974 as Mason, rose to the position of Deputy Manager, when following charge sheet dated 17.1.2000 was issued to him along with a statement of allegations, containing as many as (xviii) allegations, reproduced as under:- '
(i) That you being a responsible officer failed to safeguard the interest of Pakistan Steel and grossly ignored the SOPs, Rules and Regulations and committed acts of omission and commission jointly and severally in the following cases causing huge financial loss to Pakistan. Steel.
(ii) That due to your involvement at all stages and acts of omission and. Commission having been committed by you in the cased of general maintenance of IMD Complex office and bathrooms for Soviet Experts, Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs. 85,472/- on account of fate different and cost of construction material disowned by the individual in whose name the said material was issued.
(iii) That in the case of fumigation and Termite Proofing work of 08 office Barracks, Admin. Block-I and II, Stationary Stores, Old Record Room and G.S. Sub-Stores, you initiated the case at your end on the pretext that a number of complaints regarding Termite Proofing are lying pending due to non-availability of proper arrangements of Termite Proofing in PCM Department. The work has shown awarded to the parties which are physically non-existent. Thus causing a loss of Rs.
3,81,445/- to Pakistan Steel.
(iv) That in the case of Barbed Wire works at Head Office, you were involved from preparation of its estimate and installation departmentally whereas higher charges of deploying daily. Wage workers for the said job were claimed. The consumption of Barbed wires was less than that estimated. In this way, Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs. 53,000/-.
(v) That in the case of replacement of chairs in Conference Room of Operation Bldg., you arranged quotations on higher rates i.e. Rs. 2,900/- per chair whereas the same party has quoted the price of same chair to be Rs. 2.40Q/- as on .08.07.1999. As such due to the aforesaid acts of omission and commission having been committed by you, Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs. 15,000/-
(vi) That in the case of renovation and maintenance work of , MTC Bldg., the completion whereof has not been fully verified you signed the bills whereas mill work has not been verified by the Indentors as well as by the party concerned. The wood purchased for the repair of stage is physically non-existent. In this case Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs. 2,47,580/-.
(vii) That in the case of Barbed Wire Fancing Work around Head Office and Telephone Exchange, you remained involved almost at all. Stages. In this case, Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs.
43,350/-.
(viii) That you were a party in the case of renovation and painting work at F.T.C., office. The estimate was prepared by P.C.M. Officials of their own. Higher rates other than the approved ' standard rates were shown. The person in whose name payment voucher was prepared and official who was shown to have been given cash for disbursement of wages have totally denied of having received any cheque/cash. According to job card, the work has been carried out departmentally by deploying daily wage' workers paid through pay-roll and not through hiring the daily wage workers as shown for this particular job. As such, Pakistan Steel was put into loss of Rs. 48,000/-
(ix) That you were a party in the case of writing work (approx. 150 sq. Mtrs) on the walls from the exit of Jinnah Terminal to Star Gate. The party through whom the work was shown to have been carried out is physically nonexistent. The work was carried out departmentally on very nominal cost and not hiring any daily wage worker through outside agency. In this ca$e, Pakistani Steel suffered a loss of Rs. 64,850/-
(x) That in the case of repair/maintenance of Transport workshop including maintenance of building, you remained involved almost at all stages. Purchase of material has been denied by the parties concerned. Moreover, no daily wage workers were hired specially for this job. The work has been carried out departmentally. Fake bogus/fictitious documents were arranged/prepared and Pakistan Steel was made to suffer a loss of Rs. 3,09,950/- in this deal.
(xi) That you were also involved almost at all stages in the case of making arrangements of proper lighting system around 04 stores Building in Stores Group (sic).
Workers for this job. The purchase _______ shown made from the parties who are physically non- existent. Hence, Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs. 1,08,891/-.
(xiii) That in the case of installation of electrical items in Pakistan Steel Canteens' premises, you remained involved almost at all stages. Most of the items were available in stores but shown as purchased. The rates quoted in quotations differ with the rates billed. The party from whom the items were shown purchased is physically non-existent. In this case, Pakistan Steel suffered a loss of Rs. 1,88,918/-
(xiv) That you were a party in the case of preparatory works in connection with visit of VIP in Pakistan Steel. In this case some partial under-hand purchase was made on less prices basis than the rates shown in the bill. The documents for the full amount as shown in the estimates are bogus/fake. In this way, Pakistan Steel was made to suffer a loss of Rs. 53,000/-
(xv) That in the case of cleaning and maintenance of storm water and procurement of emergency material, you remained involved in processing of the case. While processing- the case procedural requirements were not completed. The items shown purchased could not made available for physical verification by Audit Team. The bills of daily wage workers are fake, # bogus and fictitious, No such work was carried out. Thus Pakistan Steel was made to suffer a loss of Rs. 1,13,600/-
(xvi) That you were a party in the up-gradation and furnishing the office of plant Controlling Services. In this case purchase were made from the parties which are physically nonexistent. The description/specification of items are incomplete in all the documents. In this irregular deal, Pakistan Steel sustained a loss of Rs. 1,62,500/-.
(xvii) That you remained associated in the case of re-carpeting of Seminar Hall/Lecture Room at IMS&R. In this case, purchases were made on very high prices. During physical verification, the quantities of items shown purchased remained un-verified. Thus Pakistan Steel was made to suffer a loss of Rs. 1,87,280/-.
(xviii) That you were a party in the case of maintenance work of Transport Yard, Karachi. The party from whom the purchase were shown made has totally denied of having such a deal. The concerned officials have denied of having made any payment of daily wage workers. As such Pakistan Steel sustained a loss of Rs. 1,77,400/- in this case.
(Hamid Pervez)
' In charge (AP)"
The appellant replied the charge sheet on 21.1.2000, denying the allegations against him. Thereafter following recovery notice dated 02.02.2000 was issued to him:- SUB: RECOVERY NOTICE As a result of Special Audit on the affairs of Plant Civil Maintenance Department it has been revealed that you committed irregularities/deviation from the laid down procedure, with mala i.e intention to Obtain wrongful gains for yourself and others, Pakistan Steel suffered an estimated of Rs. 23,34,960/- as per details attached.
2. You are, therefore, hereby advised to refund a total amount of loss of Rs. 23,34,960/- occasioned due to your wilful acts in Accounts Department, Pakistan Steel within 07 days of the receipt of this notice failing which cognizable measures. Under Civil Law will be adopted by the Management at your cost and risk.
(Hamid Pervez)
In charge (A&P)"
It was replied by the appellant on 10.02.2000 denying the allegations against him, therefore, a full- fledged departmental inquiry was held against the appellant. In the inquiry report dated 28.12.2001 the inquiry committee concluded as under:- "CONCLUSIONS"
The defendant has stated .That as per practice he used to sign the documents on the orders of Mr. Sultan Hussain, A.M. (Accounts) with the advice that it is accounting requirement: Whereas his superiors signatures were also there on the documents. The defendant also mentioned the .Facts in the charges No. VI, VIII and XVIII, the material was not used for the job but delivered and consumed at the residences of ex-Director (Finance) and ex^Chairman, also produced witness for the same. The defendant has further added that he had agitated against such orders of superiors for which he was dismissed in July, 1996 later on reinstated.
After summarizing the facts it is evident that in almost all charges defendant is involved on the basis of his signature on the related documents. Specially quotations, bills, daily wagers payment sheet and minspection report and found responsible for such irregularities which caused the loss to the Corporation ps pointed out by the Internal Audit for which other officials also charge sheeted.
Sd/- 31.12.2001 Sd/-31.12.2001 (S.K Irshad Rizvi) (Rashid A. Zafar)
G. M. (Marketing),Member G.M. (ESB), Member Sd/- 31.12.2001 (A. Latif Siddiqui)
G.M. (Accounts), Convener"
In consequence of the findings of the inquiry committee, the appellant was dismissed from service vide dismissal order dated 11.1.2002. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 23.1,2002 to the Chairman, Pakistan Steel, Karachi, which was not responded to; hence, he filed the present appeal praying to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.1.2002 and to reinstate him in service with all back benefits.
3. In the written comments, filed on behalf of the respondent 2 it was, inter alia, stated that the appellant had been dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct proved squarely against him; that full-fledged departmental inquiry proceedings were held wherein the appellant was given every possible opportunity to defend himself and he was also personally heard, but he failed to rebut the charges against him; hence, he had no cause of action to i.e this appeal, therefore, his appeal was not maintainable.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the . Parties and perused the record of the appeal carefully.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the charge-sheet was issued to the appellant by an incompetent person, as it was not mentioned in it that it was issued under the orders of the competent authority, that the charge-sheet was issued on 17.1.200Q as Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was not in existence, but the appellant had been punished under the said Ordinance, as such, the punishment imposed upon the appellant was illegal; that the charge-sheet pertained to the period from January 1996 to December 1996, but the service Of the appellant had already-been terminated on 11.7.1996; hence, the appellant could not have been held responsible for any financial irregularities based on his signatures on certain documents which signatures were not the requirement "of rules; that the appellant- had put his signatures on some documents as routine practice and at the instance of his superiors; that there was no mens rea on the part of the appellant in signing such documents; that after the departmental inquiry, no show-cause notice was- issued to him; that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant and the appellant was not personally heard *as mentioned in the impugned dismissal ' order; 'that. The appellant was not at all responsible for loss if any caused to Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation as he had no financial power or the power to purchase any material; that the culprits who were directly responsible for embezzlement, misappropriation and misconduct had already been punished along with order of recovery of the embezzled amount which had already been recovered from them; that the service of the appellant had already been terminated in the year* 1996 in connection with the allegations at serial Nos. VI, VIII and XIII and the appellant could not be punished again on the said allegations; that the allegations against the appellant as stated in the inquiry report constituted alleged irregularities on his part; that the appellant had not obtained any benefit or financial gain by committing such, irregularities;, that the allegations against the appellant of irregularities are of- lesser significance than the acts of omission/commission committed by the others who had already been dismissed from service along with others namely Muhammad Aslam Khan, Arshad Saleem, Sultan Hussain and Muhammad Irfan; that the punishment of- -dismissal of the appellant was extremely harsh in view of the allegations of irregularities allegedly committed by him; that the appellant is, therefore, entitled to be exonerated or in the alternative the Tribunal would graciously modify his punishment by imposing minor penalty on the appellant commensurate with the alleged irregularities which fall within the ambit of negligence.
The learned counsel for the respondents did not controvert the factual position point out' by the learned counsel for the appellant, but maintained that the penalty of dismissal of the appellant from service was imposed upon him in accordance with law giving^im full chance to defend himself in the departmental inquiry and after hearing him in person by the competent authority.
The learned counsel for - the respondents stated that no prejudice was caused to the appellant by procedural discrepancies pointed out by the I learned counsel for the appellant as the appellant had' not denied his signatures on various documents which he had allegedly signed as per routine practice.
7. We have carefully considered the above arguments of both sides. We find that the appellant was not in service of the respondents during the later half of the year 1996, but he was saddled with the responsibilities of all the acts of misconduct committed by the others. The appellant had not denied his signatures on certain documents, but he alleged that fake documents were produced making him liable for the bungling during the later half period of the year 1996. He had admittedly signed the documents as per routine practice. It has not been shown by the respondents what was the significance of the signatures of the appellant whether his signatures were necessary for clearing the bills or for making any payment. It has also not been shown if the appellant had acquired any illegal financial gains by means of his signatures. In the inquiry report he has been mainly held responsible for committing irregularities which means, if he had been careful enough he could have avoided commission of such irregularities. He appeared to have been negligent in not acting with care and caution in putting his signatures inadvertently at the instance of his superiors. The respondents had not shown to us what would have happened if the appellant had not signed the bills etc., and whether his signatures on the bills and other documents/ vouchers were necessary for payment etc., and whether, the loss allegedly caused to the respondent- Pakistan Steel Mills would not have been caused if the appellant had not signed the documents in question.
8. In the circumstances, mentioned above, in our opinion the case of the appellant falls within the purview of negligence, which hardly called for imposing a major penalty of dismissal upon him. In the cases reported in 2005 SCM R 1617 major penalty imposed upon (sic) the case of the appellant as that of negligence, we allow the appellant the extent of modifying the major penalty of dismissal of the appellant to that of withholding of his three increments for a period of three years.
Consequently, we set-aside the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant and modify the penalty of dismissal by converting it into penalty of withholding his three increments for a period of three years. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service from the date of his dismissal from service. The intervening period be treated as the kind of leave that may be due to the appellant.
9. No order as to costs.
10. 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.