' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C J.---This petition is directed against judgment dated 4-10-2007 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby respondent Kazim Raza was reinstated in service and the punishment of compulsory retirement was converted into reduction in rank from National Savings Officer (B-16) to Deputy National Savings Officer (B-14) subject to deposit of retirement benefits, if drawn by him.
2. We have heard Mr. Sadaqat Ali Mirza, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, learned counsel for the respondent at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
3. It is contended by learned, Standing Counsel that in view of report dated 26-8-2002 submitted by Inquiry Committee major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon respondent under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 on 8-3-2004, as he was found guilty of inefficiency and misconduct. He further contended that learned Tribunal was not justified in converting the penalty of removal of service into reduction in rank as he has failed to perform his duties efficiently due to which huge loss has been caused to the national exchequer.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent controverted above contentions and supported impugnd judgment. He contended that the statement of allegations issued to respondent did not allege any mala fide or corruption on his part. He further contended that major penalty could not be imposed on the charge of negligence. In support he placed reliance on the case reported as Auditor General of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Ali and others 2006 SCM R 60.
5. The respondent while working as National Saving Officer/Inspector conducted audit of the accounts of National Saving Centre, Renala Khurd from 1-9-1999 to 30-6-2000. In the said audit he has faile9 to detect and pinpoint the irregularities due to which fraud/misappropriation took place.
If he had been vigilant and probed the record deeply, the fraud would have been unearthed.
Though respondent was found negligent but in the circumstances of the case the major punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed upon him seems to be harsh and the learned Tribunal rightly converted the same into reduction in the rank. It was held in the case of Muhammad Ali referred (supra) that carelessness is definitely an act of negligence which may not strictly fall within the ambit of misconduct as defined in Rule 2 of the Government Servants (E&D)
Rules, 1975 but it is definitely a valid ground on the basis of which a Government Servant can be awarded penalty as provided in rule 3 of the above rules. The element of bad faith and willfulness may bring an act of negligence within the purview of misconduct but lack of proper care and vigilance may, not always be willful to make it a case of grave negligence inviting severe punishment. The philosophy of punishment is based on the concept of retribution which may be either through the method of deterrence or reformation. The purpose of deterrent punishment is not only to maintain balance with the gravity of wrong done by a person but also to make an example for other as a preventive measure for reformation of the society, whereas the concept of minor punishment in the law is to make an attempt to reform the individual wrong doer. In service matters, the extreme penalty for minor acts depriving a person from right of earning would defeat the reformatory concept of punishment in administration of justice. In view of above discussion, no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out which is maintained. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.