M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY CHAIRMAN).-The appellant has impugned the order of the Full Board of Revenue dated 24-9-1979 whereby he was punished with censure and recovery of Rs. 6,138, this being 25% of the amount misappropriated through wrong verification of entries involving special adhesive stamps, the appellant having been found guilty of negligence in this respect.
2. Previously, the Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, had, vide his order dated 22-2-1979, ordered the appellant's reversion as Senior Clerk, with the direction that 50% of the amount involved, i.e., Rs. 12,276, be recovered from the appellant. The Full Board of Revenue took a lenient view and reduced the punishment through the impugned order.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an Audit Party, on checking the sale accounts of special adhesive stamps in the Stamp Branch of the Board, found that, apart from huge amounts misappropriated during various periods, during the period July, 1967 to June, 1969, a total of Rs. 25,664.64, was defal- -cated by one George Francis, Stamps Clerk, through misappropriation of these adhesive stamps.
Ten entries, in this connection, were verified by the appellant. It was apprehended by the Board of Revenue that George Francis alone could not have manoeouvred the misappropriation which, according to the Audit Party, amounted to a total of nearly Rs. 5 lakh, and that some other employees must also have connived at the act in collusion with George Francis. The appellant was one of those who were proceeded against in this connection vide charge-sheet dated 12-8-74 issued under the 9V. P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. An enquiry was held, and the then Secretary (Colonies) in the Board of Revenue was appointed Inquiry Officer who held that the charge was not proved against the appellant. Disagreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, a charge-sheet for dismissal from service was served on the appellant and the Senior Member (Establish--ment), after due process, reduced the appellant to the rank of Senior Clerk and ordered recovery of 50% of the amount involved. In an appeal to the Full Board a lenient view was taken and the appellant was restored as Assistant, with the amount of recovery being reduced to 25% of the amount involved.
4. The parties were heard. The learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on the fact that the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant after due enquiry. He also put forth the argument that the real culprit, i.e. George Francis had been discovered and proved to have been the master-mind behind the crooked operation. The appellant dealt with the work of stamps for a few days only and could not be said to be experienced enough to counteract the machinations of the real culprit. On behalf of the respondent--Department it was contended that, as an Assistant with long service behind him, the appellant was expected to know the right and wrong procedure while he was on such a responsible post and that the punishment of recovery of only 25% of the misappropriated amount was a lenient punishment.
5. Apart from other arguments, we would be inclined to place reliance on the report of the Enquiry Officer who was himself Secretary (Colonies) in the Board of Revenue and must be fully acquainted with the measure of responsibility entailed in the work of the appellant in the Stamp Branch. We are fortified in this by the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1447/S of 1968, whereby in the context of West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, it was held that if it is decided to disagree with the Inquiry Officer exonerating an accused official, reasons should be communicated to that official for such disagree went so that he is duly prepared for his defence. This judgment was up-- held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Appeal No. 15 of 1973.
The appellant in the instant case was not informed why the authority concerned had decided to disagree with the Enquiry Officer's report exonerating him. Moreover, the impugned order acknowledges the blotless record of the appellant and finds him guilty of negligence only and not of complicity in the shady undertaking. We notice also that the full amount in question has already been ordered to be recovered from the main accused.
In view of the considerations above, we set aside the impugned order dated 24-9-1979, without, however, any order as to costs.