Sayed Mehar Hussain Shah, Member.--This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.9.2005 under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, whereby penalty of censure was imposed upon the appellant alongwith recovery of outstanding amount with up-to- date markup of involved loan cases. Against the said punishment, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal dated 14.10.2005, which having not been responded; present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal on 23.2.2006, appears to be barred by time.
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has also been filed supported by an affidavit.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order is illegal, void ab-initio; hence, liable to be set-aside. That the report of the inquiry officer is not based on evidence, as he miserbaly failed to provide chance of cross examination to the appellant; hence, violated the law.
That the Respondent No. 2 failed to consider that the inquiry officer has only relied upon the statement of relatives of the borrowers. Learned counsel argued that the issuance of pass book is the sole responsibility of Revenue Authorities, and each and every entry is to be authenticated by the concerned Revenue Officers, the revenue authorities have never denied the issuance of such pass books. He further argued that imposition of penalty is unwarranted. That there is no allegation/charge against the appellant with regard to misappropriation, embezzlement, fraud or forgery, and that the appellant is not the beneficiary in the above advancement of loans. He further urged that due to the death of his son and serious illness of his wife, appellant failed to file the present appeal in time; hence, delay be condoned and the appeal be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and argued that the appeal is hopelessly time barred, as such, it shall be dismissed on this ground alone. That in-efficiency on the part of appellant was proved during the inquiry, wherein he was provided full chance to defend himself, but he failed. He argued that the competent authority took lenient view by awarding penalty of censure. He further argued that proper procedure was followed during the inquiry and the appellant was provided report of the inquiry officer alongwith the show cause notice and was personally heard. It was denied that the competent authority have only considered the statement of relatives of the borrowers, but decided the case by considering all aspect of the matter. The appellant was awarded the penalty due to his slackness in supervision being Manager of the Branch. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
4. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that while the appeal was pending before the Tribunal for hearing, departmental appeal of the appellant was decided by the respondents vide order dated 22.7.2009; hence, with permission, amended memo. of appeal was filed on 28.9.2009, which is taken on record.
Prayers in both the appeals are same. In view of the fact that departmental appeal dated 14.10.2005 having been rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 22.7.2009, the amended appeal is filed; hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal earlier filed on 23.2.2006.
5. We have considered above submissions of both sides. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has been held guilty of in-efficiency by the inquiry officer and the competent authority taking into consideration findings of the inquiry officer, imposed penalty of censure upon the appellant alongwith recovery of outstanding amount with upto date mark-up of involved loan cases. The inquiry officer in his findings in respect of Allegation No. 1 has observed that, "no doubt the verification of Revenue Record and spot investigation is the duty of MCO, who has verified and certified the documents, but Manager being Incharge of the branch is responsible for all the operational activities of the branch and be cannot be absolved from the responsibility". In the present case, MCO (Mobile Credit Officer) has verified and certified the documents; hence, Incharge alone cannot be held responsible and on the basis of report submitted by MCO, loan was sanctioned by the appellant, being the sanctioning authority. We observed that penalty of censure has been imposed upon the appellant due to the alleged inefficiency. We are not dealing with the charges of embezzlement, fraud or corruption, which as per report of the inquiry officer, have not been established. We are dealing with the charges of in-efficiency, as leveled against the appellant, which have been proved during the inquiry and punishment of censure has been imposed upon the appellant. So far as holding the appellant responsible for recovery of outstanding amount alongwith up-to-date mark-up of involved loan cases is concerned, it is noteworthy, that loan should be recovered from the borrower as per terms and conditions mentioned in the respective agreements and if any installement goes in default, necessary intimation to the Revenue Officer may be issued for the recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue under Section-4(7) of LACIP Act, 1973. Under Section 24 of ADB Ordinance, 1961, the Bank may, by notice, require any borrower forthwith to repay his debt to the Bank in full under certain circumstances, such as, breach of agreement, supply of false information, delusion of security etc. It has also been brought on record that as a result of fire, record of Mukhtiarkar, K. N. Shah (including Pass Book No. 824341 of Mr. Qamaruddin) has been burnt and FIR has been lodged with P.P. Sita Road; therefore, it can be said that Pass Book was available. The inquiry officer as well as competent authority totally ignored the fact that borrower has availed the loan and re-payment is his/her sole responsibility.
6. In view of the above, we while setting aside the impugned order dated 29.9.2005 to the extent of recovery of amount from the appellant, modify it to censure, and direct the respondents not to effect recovery from the appellant. Appeal stands disposed of as such, with no order as to costs.
7. Parties be informed accordingly.