TARIQ FAROOK, MEMBER - In` the above- mentioned two appeals the appellants were dismissed from service vide orders dated 31.12.2002 and their departmental appeals were rejected by the Appellate Authority on 2.12.2003. Since both the appeals contain similar facts and involve identical questions of law they have been taken up together and shall be disposed of by this order.
2. Appeal No 421(K)(CS)/2003 is being discussed here.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Postmaster at Post Office, Sobho Dero, District Khairpur when the Vigilance Team of the Department visited his Post Office on 1.7.2002. On physical verification of cash balance as well as stamps balance the Team discovered a shortage amounting to Rs. 10,185/- in the said balances. When confronted with this shortage the appellant went and returned with the said amount of Rs. 10,185/- which was credited to the Government account at P.O. Sobho Dero vide Receipt No. 32, dated 1.7.2002. The appellant was served with a Show-Cause Notice under the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 on the following charges:-
(1) Misappropriation of Government money (temporarily).
(2) Corruption.
(3) Misconduct."
The appellant submitted his reply on 8.10.2002 wherein he stated that Sobho Dero is a very small village where security arrangements are not available and since it would not have been safe to leave the cash/stamps at the Post Office he had removed them to a safe place outside the Post Office. The appellant was granted .Personal hearing by the Competent Authority on 23.10.2002 but he failed to convince the Authority of his innocence. Consequently, the Competent Authority/Divisional Superintendent Postal Services, Sukkur vide his order dated 31.12.2002 imposed upon the appellant the major penalty of dismissal from service. The appellant filed a departmental appeal dated 13.1.2003 before the Deputy Postmaster General, Sukkur Region but the Appellate Authority, after granting him personal hearing on 12.11.2003, rejected the appeal vide order dated 2.12.2003. Thereafter the appellant approached the Federal Service Tribunal with the instant appeal on 27.12.2003.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was not guilty of misappropriation because he had taken the cash to his home for safe keeping and the amount was subsequently credited to the relevant account on 1.7.2002. The learned Counsel further contended that the so-called confession of the accused/appellant available on the file had been obtained under coercion and was therefore null and void, It was further argued that a regular inquiry was necessary before the imposition of a major penalty, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2004 SCMR 1662, but in the instant case neither a regular inquiry was held nor any reason give to dispense with it. The learned Counsel further argued that the purpose of penalty is to reform the individual and not to deprive him of his livelihood, as held by the Apex Court in 2006 SCMR 60, and therefore a minor penalty would have sufficed in the present case on the analogy of 2003 PLC (C.S) 497. The learned Counsel finally pleaded that the case may be remanded to the respondents for holding de novo inquiry.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has argued that the confession made by the accused/appellant was entirely voluntary, and in view of this admission on the part of the accused it was not necessary to hold a regular inquiry in the instant case. The learned Standing Counsel has further pointed out that the appellant was a habitual offender and on the visit of the Divisional Superintendent, Post Services to his Post Office on 24.12.2002 again an amount of Rs. 46,256/- had been found short which was subsequently credited by the appellant on 26.12.2002, and this misdemeanor is sufficient proof of the fact that the appellant is in the habit of misusing government money.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel and have also gone through the relevant record.
7. We find that the accused had undoubtedly admitted the shortage of the amount of Rs. 10,185/-.
In` his departmental appeal he had taken the stance that he had removed the said amount to a safe place at "the residence of my near relative," whereas in the present appeal he has stated that the said cash was kept "at my home" for safe keeping. Be that as it may, the appellant had clearly admitted that he had removed the government money out of the precincts of the Post Office, In` view of this admission of the appellant, we are of the opinion that there was no need to hold a regular inquiry in the matter.
8. As regards the defence plea that the said amount had been removed from the Post Office because it would not have been safe to leave ii there, we feel that this explanation is untenable in view of the fact that the amount could easily have been locked up in a safe almirah in the Post Office or alternatively, if the neighbourhood was considered to be totally unsafe, the Postmaster was duty bound to remit the cash beyond the authorized limit to his nearest GPO or Accounts Office designated for the purpose. In` any case, keeping government money/securities at his residence or at the residence of his near relative was obviously an act of misconduct on the part of the appellant as it tantamounted to temporary misappropriation of government money, It is also pertinent to point out that the appellant had subsequently credited the amount not of his on free will but when he was confronted with the shortage by the Vigilance Team.
9. While the guilt of the accused/appellant has been proved beyond doubt, we feel that the penalty imposed upon him was rather too harsh. Consequently, the penalty of dismissal from service is hereby converted into the penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of his dismissal. The appellant shall be entitled to receive the retirement/pensionary benefits accordingly.
10. This order shall apply mutatis mutandis to Appeal No. 422(K)(CS)/2003.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Parties be informed accordingly.