1. ' The appellant, who was a Senior Clerk in the Police Department, impugnes the order dated 16th October, 1976 by the respondent No. 1 retiring him compulsorily from service and the appellate orders dated 26th July, 1977 by the respondent No, 2, rejecting his appeal. The facts of the case as stated before us are that in March, 1973, Constable No, 124 Mohammad Luqman made a complaint to the effect that while the appellant Mr. Ghulam All Shah was working as Accountant in the office of S.P. Rahim Yar Khan, he (the complainant) had approached the appellant for the payment of Recreation Allowance but was told that he had already received that and an entry had been made in the complainants' documents. On the insistance of the complainant, the appellant had agreed to make him the payment provided he did not give air to the matter. A probe was carried out by the Inspector, C.I.A., and it was found that Rs, 84 had been drawn as Recreation Allowance for Constable Mohammad Luqman on 6th November, 1971 but the amount had been misappropriated by the Accountant. The original Acquittance Roll bore a revenue stamp against the name of Mohammad Lugman but not his signatures. A duplicate Acquittance Roll had been added. The appellant was therefore charge-sheeted and a formal enquiry was held. The appellant produced Defence Witnesses who testified to the effect that :
(i) Payment of Rs, 84 had been made to the complainant in their presence and acquittance roll signed.
2. 00 The complainant had admitted to a defence witness that he had already received the payment but had lodged the complaint on the instigation of someone else.
3. ' The Enquiry Officer held in his findings that the rnala fide of the accused/appellant were proved because the acquaintance roll did not bear the complainant's signatures whereas the Cash Book showed the disbursement having been made. He was further of the view that there would have been no necessity of preparing a duplicate roll if payment had originally been made. In view of the evidence of Defence Witnesses and absence of conclusive evidence to show that the signatures of the complainant on the duplicate roll were forged, he came to the conclusion that payment had ultimately been made to the complainant and the accused/appellant was guilty of "temporary embezzlement". The appellant was consequently compulsorily retired from service with the impugned orders.
4. ' We have heard the arguments of both sides. The appellant took the plea that one Sub-Inspector Khalid Ahmad whose Horse Allowance the appellant had not allowed had become inimical towards him and bad I instigated Constable Mohammad Luqman to file a false complaint against him. He relied on the evidence of defence witnesses who had testified that the payment had been made to the complainant in their presence. The record of their statements, however, showed that the defence witnesses had not stated the exact date on which the payment was-stated to have been made.
5. The appellant insisted that the payment had actually been made on the same day as shown in the Cash Book. He however could not give any satisfactory argument to justify the preparation of a duplicate roll which was attached to the original. He explained that the complainant was in a hurry and wanted the payment immediately, whereas the acquaintance roll was not with him and was elsewhere in the office for getting signatures of some other payees. So, the appellant further stated, he got a duplicate roll prepared and made the payment immediately to oblige the defence witnesses who had recommended the case of the complainant. This explanation has failed to convince us. The preparation of a duplicate roll would definitely have taken more time than obtaining the original roll from some other desk in the same office, if at all it could be accepted that the acquaintance roll could be allowed to go away from the person responsible for making the payments. In any case the duplicate could not be prepared without the original. We, therefore, find that the Enquiry Officer was correct in his conclusion that the amount had first been embezzled by the appellant and might have been paid at a subsequent date.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in case of temporary embezzlement as per Enquiry Officer's findings a fresh charge-4 sheet should have been served on the appellant. We do not agree wit his argument. Embezzlement remains embezzlement even if the amount is subsequently returned. Even otherwise there was no necessity to frame a fresh charge-sheet when after enquiry it turns out that the actual offence is of milder degree.
7. ' We do not find any strength in any of the pleas of the appellant and dismiss the appeal.