' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- These connected civil appeals have arisen out of a common judgment, dated 12-7-2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the separate appeal filed by the appellants against the different punishments awarded to them by the departmental authority were partly allowed with alteration in the penalties.
2. Shahid Pervaz, appellant in Civil Appeal No,1922 of 2002 was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs,1,12,570 whereas Amjad Aleem appellant in C.A. 1924 of 2002 was imposed the penalty of reduction in time scale by 3 stages and recovery of Rs,67,500.
Abdul Razzaq appellant in C.A. 1923 of 2002 was dismissed from service and was also imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs,1,83,800. The Tribunal by reducing the punishment of all the three appellants into reduction in time scale by one stage, partly allowed their appeals.
3. The appellants in C.As. Nos.1922 to 1924 of 2002 (hereinafter called the appellants) being not satisfied with the judgment of Tribunal, have filed separate appeals before this Court whereas the Government of Punjab and others (hereinafter to be called respondents) also challenged the judgment of Tribunal in the connected Appeals, bearing Nos.1919 to 1921 of 2002. Leave was granted in these appeals vide order dated 17-12-2002 as under:-- "By this judgment we propose to decide the titled civil petitions involving identical questions of law and facts.
(2) The petitioners in Petitions Nos.3526-L, 3540-L and 3580-L of 2002 along with cashier were proceeded against regarding fraudulent withdrawal of certain G.P. Fund advances on the bills bearing their signatures. The Inquiry Officer was of the opinion that though negligence on the part of these petitioners in connection with withdrawal of G.P. Fund advance was proved but they were not party to the fraud for which cashier was responsible. The departmental authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service on Shahid Pervaiz and Ch. Abdul Razzaq and penalty of reduction in time scale by three stages on Muhammad Amjad Aleem petitioner in addition to that, penalty of recovery of specified amounts from them was also imposed.
(3) Feeling aggrieved, these petitioners filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal which have been decided through the impugned judgment, dated 12-9-2002. The penalties of dismissal from service imposed on Shahid Pervaiz and Ch. Abdul Razzaq petitioners have been modified in the manner that their order of dismissal from service was set aside and penalty of recovery of specified amount maintained by finding that they were not parties to the fraud but were negligent.
Whereas penalty of Muhammad Amjad Aleem was modified to the extent that the same was converted into reduction in time scale by one stage as a consequence thereof, Shahid Pervaiz and Ch. Abdul Razzaq petitioners were ordered to be reinstated and period of intervening to be treated as leave of the kind to be due.
(4) These petitioners have challenged the said judgment. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners were held to be not party to the fraud and it was only the Cashier who was wholly responsible who had also found to have caused financial loss to the State and the beneficiary of withdrawal of the G.P. Fund advances, therefore, the penalty of recovery of specific amounts from the petitioners namely, Shahid Pervaiz and Abdul Razzaq were not justified in law as the same is inconsistent with the findings whereas petitioner Muhammad Amjad Aleem has also challenged the imposition of penalty to reduction in time scale by one stage. It was also contended that the penalties imposed on them through modification also do not commensurate with the finding of merely negligence though they were not even negligent, for the cashier admitted that he was wholly responsible.
(5) The Provincial Government has filed Civil Petitions Nos.3376-L, 3377-L and 3378 of 2002 seeking grant of leave to appeal challenging the same judgment.
(6) It was contended on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court that the penalties imposed by the departmental authority were justified.
(7) Leave is granted in all these petitions to further examine the entire case.
(8) During the pendency of the appeals, recovery of the amounts from the appellants in. Civil Petitions Nos.3526-L, 3540-L and 3580-L of 2002 shall remain stayed. These appellants in compliance with the judgment of the Service Tribunal impugned in these petitions shall in the meantime be reinstated and allowed to perform their duties against the posts who shall also be paid their salaries etc., admissible to them.
(9) Since it is a service matter, therefore, hearing of these appeals shall be expedited for which order from Honourable Chief Justice shall be obtained."
4. The sole question for determination in these appeals would relate to the liability of the appellants in the transactions of fraudulent withdrawal of certain amounts from G.P. Fund accounts. The Tribunal has held that although the appellants were neither party to the fraud nor were the beneficiary but due to their negligence, cashier committed mischief and caused loss to the exchequer. The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that the cashier being the actual beneficiary, was, responsible for causing financial loss to the Government and the appellants were not party to the transaction, failed to consider the legality of the penalty awarded to them and that in any case, the penalties imposed upon them being not commensurate to the nature of charge of negligence, were excessive. The charge against the appellants was that they with active connivance of each other and the cashier as well as staff of the District Accounts Office Multan, having prepared fictitious/forged documents have withdrawn certain amount of G.P. Fund advance from different accounts, and misappropriated the Government money. The Tribunal having considered the matter in detail held that obviously fraud was committed by the cashier with the connivance of staff of District Accounts Office and the failure of appellants to have not properly checked and verified the bills with due care and vigilance, was misconduct.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the cashier by giving an affidavit has taken the responsibility of the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of G.P. Fund advances on the basis of fake vouchers and in view of the finding of the Inquiry Officer as well as the Tribunal, the penalty awarded to them was not proper and in any case, the recovery of amount of alleged loss of the Government was without any legal justification.
6. The learned A.A.-G. On the other hand has contended that the Inquiry Officer as well as the.
Tribunal has held that due to the negligence of the appellant financial loss was caused to the Government; therefore, the punishment awarded to them by the competent authority was quite in accordance with law. However, he stated that if the amount of loss is ultimately deposited by the cashier, the amount required to be paid by the appellants will be refunded to them.
7. This is a matter of record that the appellants without proper verification and vigilance put their signature on the vouchers on the basis of which G.P. Fund advances were withdrawn, and notwithstanding the fact that they were not party to the fraud, the negligence on their part, was established beyond doubt. The appellants being responsible officials were required to be extra vigilant in such sensitive matters and were not supposed to put the signatures on the vouchers without verification of the sanction for payment. The admission of the cashier would not absolve them from their responsibility of taking proper care and vigilance in checking the bills so that no mischief could be done by the cashier. Be that as it may the appellants were neither party to the fraud nor they were beneficiary of the transaction and charge against them was only that of the negligence, therefore, the penalty to the extent of recovery of financial loss caused to the Government as a result of fraud committed by the cashier was not proper and thus, we while maintaining the penalty of reduction in the time scale, set aside the penalty of recovery of loss from them and modify the judgment of Tribunal, accordingly. Consequently, Civil Appeals Nos.1922 to 1924 of 2002 filed by the appellants are partly allowed whereas connected Appeals bearing Nos.1919 to 1921 of 2002 filed by the Government of Punjab are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.