Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Qurban Hussain was Postmaster Kohala. He was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 and was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 30.07.2011. Hence this appeal.
2. A memo of charges was issued to the appellant on 09.06.2011 that he had misappropriated Rs,2100000/- on 28.01.2010 and had thereafter absented himself from duty without making over charge of his office. He was also accused of retaining cash in excess from the authorized balances in violation of rules. The charges of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption were also levelled against him.
3. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no inquiry was held against the appellant and that no Authorized Officer was appointed.
4. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant had made a confession, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The appellant had earlier filed Appeal No, 384(R)CS/2011 which was decided on 15.9.2011. A direction was issued to the respondents to appoint an Authorized Officer and to hold a regular inquiry against him. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this direction of the Tribunal was not implemented in letter and spirit.
7. We would have given consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant but from the record we find that the appellant had admitted having made embezzlement/ misappropriation. He had not only made a confession during personal hearing given to him by the competent authority but had also submitted an affidavit to that effect. A person might have rendered a very long service and he may have ultimately refunded the embezzled amount. But long service and refund of the embezzled amount does not exonerate him of the charge of embezzlement. Embezzlement by a civil servant is a very serious charge. It cannot be condoned on this ground alone that he had not committed any mischief in his very long service.
8. From the record we find that the appellant had taken away Rs,2100000/- to his house on the pretext that this money was not safe in the post office but despite that, according to him, Rs, 1700000/- were stolen on his way to residence. This statement of the appellant is frivolous on the face of it. He was taking a huge amount to his house in an unauthorized manner for protection but Rs, 1700000/- were still stolen as per his statement. In fact this amount had not been stolen but had been used by the appellant for the construction of his demolished house. An admission to that effect was made by him. We are not prepared to believe that this admission had been made under coercion or under undue influence. The affidavit of the appellant could not be treated to be the result of use of force against him. He had himself purchased the stamp paper on which the affidavit was scribed. Thus he could not plead coercion. Even before the competent authority he had made a confessional statement. That statement could also not be treated to be the result of any undue pressure.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has made a pathetic submission that the penalty given to the appellant is very harsh. We do not agree with him. We have observed above that long service of the appellant and subsequent refund of the misappropriated amount did not entitle him to any indulgence. He had committed a very serious mischief and that mischief was admitted by him.
After that admission no further proceedings were needed. The appellant was not entitled to any lesser penalty.
10. The definition of Authorized Officer has been given in Section 2(3) of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. It clearly says that if no officer is appointed by the authority to perform the functions of an Authorized Officer under the rules, the authority itself shall be the Authorized Officer. Thus no illegality had been committed in this case. Mr. Khalil Ahmed, ASPOs was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He had conducted the inquiry on 27.06.2011. On the basis of inquiry report the appellant was served with a show-cause notice on 18.07.2011. He had submitted his reply to the show-cause notice and was also heard in person. We are not prepared to believe that the appellant, a low paid employee, himself had been paying to a Chowkidar from his own pocket to protect the Post Office. If he had appointed a Chowkidar on his own then there was no reason to take the money to his house. The circumstances clearly prove that the appellant had fabricated a story to save himself from the charge of misappropriation. We are not prepared to believe that story.
11. The result is that we find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Parties shall be informed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.