' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed on behalf of Secretary, Education (Schools), Government of the Punjab, Lahore (petitioner) against the judgment, dated 2-5-2003 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent has been accepted.
2. The order, dated 15-12-2000 passed by the Secretary, Education pursuant to Rule 1.8 of the Pension Rules, 1969 directing recovery of Rs,3,00,000 from the gratuity of respondent namely Muhammad Akhtar, the then senior Headmaster, Government High School Bhagowal Khurd, Gujrat on account of unauthorized purchase of various items was assailed by the respondent who preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Chief Secretary being Appellate Authority by means of order dated 7-11-2001 which was set aside by the learned Service Tribunal on appeal filed by the respondent, hence this petition.
3. Malik M. Imtiaz Mahl, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged with vehemence that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and the learned Service Tribunal has ignored that codal formalities were not completed and payment amounting to Rs,3,00,000 was made without proper sanction as it was beyond the financial competency of the respondent to spend such a huge amount which amounts to misconduct and abuse of financial powers.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner, scanned the entire record and perused the judgment impugned with care and caution. The charge-sheet served upon the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow to appreciate the exact nature of accusation:-- "To ' Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Senior Headmaster, G.H.S., Bhagowal, District Gujrat.
' Memo. No,9/23/96/113/Admn.-1(4), dated 4-1-1997. Subject: Charge sheet ' WHEREAS I, Muhammad Safdar. Jang Khan, Director of Public Instruction (SE), Punjab, Lahore as "Authorized Officer" in your case Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 to proceed against you.
' WHEREAS I, consider that in the light of facts of the case and in the interest of justice, it is necessary to hold an enquiry and to appoint Enquiry Officer.
' NOW, THEREFORE, you Muhammad Akhtar, Senior Headmaster, Government High School; Bhagowal (Gujrat) committed gross financial irregularities for which you are charged as under:-- "As a result of unauthorized Endt. No,2140-49/B-I, dated 18-2-1996 signed by Mr. Muhammad Bashir Bhutta, EAD you being Drawing and Disbursing Officer prepared the bills and got them passed from the District Accounts Officer, Gujrat on 25-2-1996 and drew the amount of Rs,3,00,000 without observing codal formalities unlawfully, without receiving stores and without obtaining sanction from the competent authority in spite of the fact that the letter regarding distribution of grant was cancelled vide DE(SE), Letter No,2234-35/E-1, dated 25-2-1996".
' By reason of the above you appear to be guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(I) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, for said commission on your part as detailed is enclosed statement of allegations and as such you are liable to disciplinary action under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, which may involve imposition of one or more of the penalties prescribed by Rule 4 of the E&D Rules, 1975.
' You are hereby required to submit your written defence to the above charges within 14 days of the receipt of this charge-sheet explaining as to why disciplinary action as aforesaid may not be taken against you and stating at the same time whether you also desire to be heard in person.
' Please take notice that your written defence should reach the undersigned within the aforesaid period failing which it shall be presumed that either you have no defence to offer or you have declined to offer the same and you accept the charges.
(Muhammad Safdar Jang Khan), Director Public Instructions (SE) Punjab Lahore. "
5. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that no allegation of misappropriation or embezzlement was levelled against the respondent. The main allegation appears to be "unauthorized withdrawal of Rs,3,00,000" which was spent to purchase certain items without the completion of codal formalities. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner was asked at the outset that which particular provision of law, rule made thereunder or financial regulation/direction was violated by the respondent, but amazingly no particular provision of law could be referred. "Non-observance of codal formalities" appears to be somewhat ambiguous charge and in our view particular formality required to be observed or compliance whereof has allegedly not been made should have been pointed out in an unequivocal manner enabling the delinquent officer/official to furnish proper explanation. The codal formalities non-compliance whereof has been alleged may be mandatory, directory or discretionary in nature having its own significance, import impact and therefore, general terminology "violation of codal formality" being exhaustive and vague in nature should not be used as it would not be in the interest of transparency, fair play and justice. The accusation and allegation must be of a specific nature. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner was further asked as to whether the Headmaster is not competent to sanction/incur expenditure pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Delegation of Powers Rules, 1990 being included in the Category-II read with enhanced powers for local purchases vide Finance Department Circular Letter No,FD(FR-II)5/82, dated 2-11-1986, but no answer could be given.
6. It transpired from the scrutiny of record as well as parawise comments furnished by the Department that appropriate sanction was awarded by means of letter, dated 18-2-1996 amounting to Rs,3,00,000 which was placed at the disposal of respondent under Head 598-Others Stores and head 599-Others. It is worth-mentioning that an amount of Rs,1,50,000, each was allocated against the above mentioned Head. All the necessary codal formalities were completed.
The Purchase Committee was constituted comprising of Mr. Muhammad Anwar, SST (Secretary), and Mr. Muhammad Taloot EST (Member) on 19-2-1996 and purchases were made. No doubt that letter for cancellation of sanction was received on 26-2-1996 when the payment qua bills concerning purchase of different items had been made. It is, however, to be noted that no payment was made till 10-3-1996 when the amount in question was re-sanctioned. The question regarding genuineness and authenticity of the letter dated 7-3-1996 was never determined by the Secretary or Director, Education as it could not have been done by the respondent who is not responsible to check the authenticity and genuineness of the letter received from the office of the Director, Education, Gujranwala duly signed by him. There is no rebuttal from the Department that the respondent was directed by the then Director, Education, Gujranwala to release the payment to the contractor as asserted time and again by the respondent. As mentioned hereinabove there is no charge of embezzlement and misappropriation as the details of articles purchased from the above mentioned amount were mentioned in a comprehensive manner by the respondent and purchase whereof was never challenged and rightly so as the items remained physically available, entry whereof was also made in the relevant purchase register. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner was confronted with the Finance Department Circular letter No,FD.(FR- II)5/82, dated 2-11-1986 and pointed out that under Head598-Others Stores and Head-599-others an amount of Rs,1,50,000 can be spent under each Head and thus, respondent was competent to incur expenditure amounting to Rs,3,00,000 under the above mentioned Heads to which there was no answer.
7. It has also been observed with grave concern that the joint inquiry was conducted against dozen of Headmasters without specifying the nature of allegation and moreso, the proper prescribed procedure was never followed which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice which aspect of the matter must be taken care of by the Secretary, Education Department in order to avoid repetition of such instances to eliminate the hardship of Government employees and appropriate action be initiated against those by whom such a defective inquiry proceedings were got initiated which speaks the inefficiency of the Secretary and Director, Education and also depicts lack of supervision, coordination and knowhow of relevant rules. The Department has been failed to examine as to whether such a disciplinary inquiry could have been initiated after a lapse of one year of the retirement of the respondent and if so under what circumstances in view of the relevant pension rules.
' Be as it may, no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter persuading us to grant leave to appeal. This petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. A copy of this letter be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore for appropriate action as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.