' S. HAFIZUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-Abdur Rashid was dismissed from service by the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, on 6th January, 1979 when he was serving in the Municipal Committee, Mian Channun. The charge was misconduct allegedly committed during the appellant's tenure as Accountant in the Municipal Committee of Chichawatni, Karor Pacca and Leiah. He was also charged with inefficiency. An appeal made to the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Local Government, & Rural Development Department, was rejected vide order dated 11th June, 1980.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet by the Commissioner in January, 1977 containing the following charges :-
(i) He approached the Government for cancellation of his transfer from Chichawatni to Karor Pacca, when this transfer had been ordered on 15th May, 1976 at the express request of the Anti- Corruption Establishment ;
(ii) Taking over at Karor Pacca on 2nd June, 1976, he left the charge without due orders from the authority ;
(iii) He did not conduct day to day audit of accounts while posted in Municipal Committee, Leiah.
This resulted in embezzlement of more than Rs, 17,000 and the death of the Cashier concerned;
(iv) He managed bogus payment of more than Rs, 18,000 to M. Muhammad Shafi, Contractor, for construction of staff quarter for the fire brigade, relying on the award of the Javedur Rehman Commission, which award was not applicable in this case.
' The Additional D. C. (G.), Multan, was appointed Inquiry Officer. The appellant replied to the charge-sheet on 8th February, 1977. On his reply being found not satisfactory a notice was issued (undated, according to the appellant) to show clause why a major penalty should not be imposed upon him. The appellant, in his reply dated 27th December, 1978, denied the charges and requested that since the charge of over payment to Contractor Muhammad Shafi was sub judice with the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, its result may be awaited. This plea was not accepted and the Commissioner issued the impugned order on 6th January, 1979.
3. The parties were heard. The record of the case was also sent for and examined. During the hearing on 18th February, 1981 it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that he had been acquitted by the Special. Judge,Anti-Corruption, Sahiwal, in the matter of having made bogus payment to Muhammad Shaft, Contractor. A copy of the judgment of the learned Special Judge dated 26th October, 1980 was filed with this Tribunal. In addition, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in respect of the first three charges the Enquiry Officer had observed that they had not been proved. It was only in regard to the fourth charge that the E. O. Had apportioned some blame to the appellant, but the aforementioned decision of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, had cleared the appellant even in that charge. As the facts go, it was further argued, the alleged bogus payment to the contractor had been recovered with the help of the appellant, and justice demanded that he should not be punished for this act which actually went to his credit. On behalf of the respondents, the learned D. A. Submitted that irrespective of the Court judgment the matter, as soon departmentally, showed conclusively that the appellant had connived at the bogus payment to the contractor and he feared penal actions he made it appear as if it was through his own efforts that the illegal payment was discovered and then recovered.
4. We have gone carefully through the record of this case and would like to examine each charge individually in the light of the Enquiry Report. The Enquiry Officer states in respect of charges (0 and
(ii) that the conclusion arrived at in the charge-sheet about approaching the Government for cancellation of transfer is based on the evidence of one Muhammad Hanif of M. C. Karor Pacca, and does not persuade the E.
0. To agree with it. Moreover, the appellant was granted leave again and again by the competent authority ; if his absence was not desirable leave should have been refused but this was not done.
The E.
0. Is convinced that the two charges are not proved. In regard to charge (iii) the E.
0. Finds him "not directly responsible for embezzlement of the said amount", and in fact has a word of praise for his "intention and sense of vigilance" in detecting the embezzlement.
' As for charge (iv) the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption observed as follows in his judgment dated 26th October, 1980, while acquitting the appellant : ' I have come to the conclusion that the payment was made out of misunderstanding and was recovered soon thereafter, well before the raid, and as such no misappropriation with criminal intent has taken place."
' However, we cannot ignore the fact that the contingent bill for making payment to the contractor was prepared in the hand of the appellant and while submitting the case to the Administrator he made a clear recommendation applying the award of the Javedur Rehman Commission to the case of Contractor Muhammad Shafi. In the words of the Enquiry Officer "Either the respondent made wrong recommendation with dishonest intention or he acted carelessly and without applying his mind whether or not the award was applicable to the case of the contractor". Even if we give the appellant on the basis of his past satisfactory record, the benefit of doubt in respect of "dishonest intention" we cannot ignore the fact that the matter is decidedly characterised by negligence and carelessness on the part of the appellant. The clear recommendation made by him applying the Javedur Rehman Commission Award to the case in question cannot be lightly brushed away. We, therefore, feel that whereas the penalty awarded to the appellant is' certainly excessive his action relating to charge (iv) does call for some punishment.
5. In view of the above findings we set aside the impugned orders of 6th January, 1978 and 11th June, 1980 and order that the appellant will be re-instated in service from the date he handed over charge of his last assignment. He is entitled to all back benefits in respect of pay, allowances, etc. However, in view of his carelessness as mentioned in our findings above we direct that his two annual increments will be withheld without cumulative effect.
6. The appeal thus stands accepted, subject to the stoppage of two annual increments. There is no order regarding cost.