' Syed Arshad Ali, Member.--The appellant above-named through the instant appeal assailed the major penalty of dismissal from service by the Respondent # 2 vide order dated 28.08.2009. The appellant preferred departmental representation against the impugned order on 05.09.2009 to the Respondent # 1. The appellate authority Modified the penalty of dismissal from service to that of reduction to the minimum of present pay scale on 13.03.2010 and thereafter another letter was issued on 20.03.2010 when period was fixed for five years, hence this appeal praying that impugned order of dismissal from service vide order dated 28.08.2009 and modified penalty issued vide order dated 13.03.2010 and 20.03.2010 be set aside and restore pay scale of the appellant with all consequential back benefits and the out of service period be treated as spent on duty.
2. The factual position as per memo.. Of appeal is that the appellant was appointed as Clerk (B-5) in Pakistan Postal Service w,e,f, 03.09.1990 qualified departmental examination subsequently promoted has Assistant Superintendent (B-11) in 2001, later upgraded to (B-14). The appellant was served with a statement of allegations while he was posted as Assistant Superintendent Post Office (ASPO), Sukkur by the Respondent # 2 i,e,, Post Master General, Sindh, Karachi on 10.04.2009 along with order of inquiry. Muhammad Hashim Channa was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry. The statement of allegations is reproduced hereunder as:-- "Mr. Dil Murad Golo the then officiating Senior Postmaster Jacobabad GPO now ASPOs Sukkur Sub- Division-I is accused of Inefficiency, Misconduct and Corruption arising of the following acts of omission and commission.
1. Caused loss of Rs, 1370400/- to Govt. Exchequer by fraudulent excess payment in FSP during 10th instalment at Jacobabad. Mirpur Burriro and Thull, S.O., his share as worked out by the Divisional Superintendent. Postal Services, Larkana Rs, 7.00.000/, out of which he credited Rs, 4.30.000/- under the head unclassified receipt voluntarily so far.
2. Failed to perform his legitimate duties.
3. Failed to verify/supervise the payment of FSP at counter/lack of supervision.
4. Failed to follow the Rule 26(4) of PO Manual Volume-VI and also failed to verify the transaction properly but put his initial/signature on receipt/hand to hand book at the time of receiving cash from Treasury.
5. Preparation of FSP lists 003 with his own hand writing.
6. Failed to dispatch S.B. Return on due dates".
3. The appellant expressed his no-confidence vide his application dated 11.04.2009 on the appointment of Hashim Channa as inquiry officer and farther vide his written request objected upon his conduct of inquiry, because the appellant had earlier requested for the change of inquiry officer. Notwithstanding the objection to the appointment of inquiry officer, the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and based on his finding, the Respondent # 2 the Post Master General, Sindh Karachi issued show-cause notice on 09.06.2008 alongwith copy of the inquiry report . The reply of the said show-cause notice was submitted rebutting the charges leveled against the appellant in the show-cause notice. The appellant then was called for personal hearing on 24.08.2009 vide letter dated 12.08.2009 by the Respondent # 2. The personal hearing took place on 25.08.2009. The appellant was finally dismissed by the Respondent # 2, Post Master General, Sindh, Karachi vide order dated 28.08.2009 holding that Rs, 4,30,000/- deposited by the appellant's father and brother goes to prove that the appellant had admitted the guilt. The appellant preferred departmental representation against such dismissal from service to the Respondent # 1 Director General, Pakistan Postal Service, Islamabad for setting aside the departmental appeal and reinstating the appellant in service. The Respondent # 1 considered and modified the penalty of dismissal from service to that of reduction to the minimum of his present pay scale on 13.03.2010 hence this appeal.
4. The respondent in parawise comments submitted that the contents of appellant is contrary to the fact as the appellant was fully involved in embezzlement/excess payment of. FSP during his incumbency period. The plea of the appellant that the amount of Rs, 430,000/- credited by his father was not in his knowledge and his father was forced to credit the amount is not acceptable as no one can credit such a huge amount without consultation and not being fully aware when the appellant had claimed that there were no documentary proofs. However, it is stated that the appellant was proceeded against on account of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption arising out of acts of omission and commission as mentioned in the statement of allegations communicated to the appellant through an order of inquiry dated 10.04.2009. The contention of appellant is correct to some extent that he had requested for changing of inquiry officer. As the appellant had not intimated/mentioned valid reasons in his application for changing of inquiry officer as per set procedure of RSO, 2000, therefore, his request was not considered. The contention of the appellant is not correct and contrary to the fact. The job description of both officers viz: Senior Postmaster and Assistant Postmaster is to supervise monetary transactions and day to day work of Post Office. Both officers failed to perform their legitimate duties and the department had to sustain loss of Rs, 1,370,400/- during the payment of 10th instalment of FSP at Jacobabad, Mirpur Buriro and Thul SO that's why his share was worked out viz: Rs, 430,000/- was got deposited.
Moreover, the remaining amount out of Rs, 670000/- was recovered from others involved officials.
The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as the proceeding of the inquiry conducted by inquiry officer speaks that appellant had not demanded for any particular documents for inspection and examination. Moreover, the appellant was fully aware of the fact that he was involved in. The embezzlement/excss payment of huge amount that's why an amount of Rs, 430,000/- was credited in govt. Treasury/exchequer. In fact the appellant had not demanded for any witness to be produced for cross-examination. Moreover, the inquiry officer had also formulated and asked nine question during the inquiry proceedings, if the appellant had desired to cross-examine the departmental representative. The appellant must have requested/asked for producing any witness to cross-examine at that stage. However, as far as non providing of opportunity of personal hearing by the appellate authority is concerned, the Respondent # 1 has modified the penalty of dismissal from service into reduction to the minimum of his present pay scale for five years, keeping in view the proceeding of his case where the appellant had failed to convince the authority (Respondent # 2) during the personal hearing.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted written synopsis/rulings relied upon and argued as well pleading that no witness ever was called for and examined in presence of the accused official. By the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer only recorded the statement of accused official and submitted his findings. He relied on 2008 PSC 942 and 2009 SCMR 339. He argued that major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on 28.08.2009 by the authority and ' on filing appeal said penalty was modified to that of another, major penalty of reduction to the minimum of the present pay scale for five years vide letter dated 20.03.2010 which is not permissible in law. He relied on PLJ 2009 Tribunal (Service) 113 and 2009 PLC (CS)
19. He stated that as per inquiry officer's report no documents was found to have been signed by the appellant and in absence of ample proof when two charges were not proved, two charges partly proved and two charges proved, the benefit of doubt to have been extended to the appellant hence entire action and recommendation of the inquiry officer is .Unfounded. He replied on KLR 2005 L&SC 275 and 2010 SCMR 532. Learned counsel contended that rule is that when one charge is not proved other charges are also shall be deemed as not proved. He relied on 1992 PLC (CS) 1092. The counsel contended that inquiry officer actually had conducted preliminary inquiry and not regular inquiry which cannot be equated to that of regular inquiry; hence, original and appellate both penalties are unlawful by placing reliance on NLR 2008 Civil 143. Finally, learned counsel argued that reduction in pay to initial stage is not permissible only one stage is allowed and relied on 2005 SCJ 809.
6. It transpires from the perusal of inquiry proceedings and findings thereof that no complicity or direct involvement of the appellant into embezzlement/defalcation causing loss to the government had been brought on record. It is apparent that the appellant was 'entrusted dual responsibility of Jacobabad Post office in addition to his own responsibilities @ - Sukkur, The appellant was seemingly over-worked and he had communicated his overwhelming commitments in the two post offices to his superior management thereby expressing his inability to cope with the quantum of work in the two post Offices. Further on account of his preoccupation with his domestic and personal problems like passing away of his mother and his son's ailment coupled with his excessive dependent or his subordinates cumulatively led to loose his grip on the work and probably led to his failure, The inquiry officer in his findings established that the appellant had completely failed to discharge functions in accordance with Post Office Manual. He failed to check entries at the counter. The inquiry officer proved the charge ad-seriatim" though some charges were proved and some were not. It was also incomprehensible as the appellant claimed that the proportionate amount of embezzled money deposited by his father and brother out of social pressure and fear and was not in his knowledge rather he was not aware of such deposition of money on his behalf. Such assertion on the part of appellant was unacceptable and does not hold ground. Be that as it may, the inefficiency, misconduct established beyond any shadow of doubt as the appellant failed to discharge the function in terms of discipline and order as envisaged in the Post Office Manual and that wrongs were found to had been committed.
7. The loss thus undoubtedly was caused to the government exchequer. The appellate authority probably realizing appellant's commitment and hard work together with his internal hardships had taken lenient view and modified the penalty and converted the dismissal from service into reduction to the minimum of present pay scale.
8. In view of the position, as above, we are of the considered view that the appeal merits no consideration and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Parties be informed accordingly.