' Syed Arshad Ali, Member.--The appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied assailed the impugned office order issued vide # F.6(2)Admn-II/83-III dated 15.05.2013, whereby the major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the appellant. The appellant preferred departmental representation vide letter dated 27.05.2013, which remained responde; hence, this appeal praying that the impugned order of dismissal from service may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated into service with full back benefits.
2. The factual position as per memo. Of appeal that the appellant joined the National Savings - respondent organization w.e.f, 25.05.1980 as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) BS-7, promoted as Assistant National Savings Officer (ANSO) BS-11 in 1983. The post was upgraded in the year 1986 as National Savings Officer (NSO) and the appellant was lastly serving being upgraded as National Saving Officer (NSO) BS-16. The appellant during her posting as National Savings Officer, RAO, National Savings Hyderabad was served with a charge sheet and the statement of allegations was assigned to conduct the audit of accounts of Sambara Tower, Regional Directorate National Savings, Hyderabad for the period from 01.11.2005 to 30.09.2007 wherein the appellant had failed to point out the fraud, defalcation/forgery in the audit report of Sambara Tower Branch dated 27.05.2008. The bogus deposit of Rs, 14,137,304/- fictitiously credited into various savings accounts.
Another amount of Rs, 2,203,301/- was fraudulently withdrawn from various savings accounts during the period under audit which the appellant but failed to point out the defalcation/forgery by the delinquent; as a result thereof substantial monetary loss was caused to the Government. The reply to the charge sheet was submitted by the appellant to the inquiry committee duly constituted by the authority in terms of the Rule 5 read with Rule 6 of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973 as contained in the charge sheet as referred to above. She submitted in her reply to the charge sheet that bogus/forged/fictitious/double entries of deposits of actual accounts made in other accounts by accused Muhammad Rafique, Upper Division Clerk (UDC) had not been checked. Such entries were found not reflected in the Deposit General Ledger nor was found accounted for in cash book, moreover the audit had not checked the entries mentioned in the statement of allegations at serial # 1 to 8. The deposit made against the deposit slips were found correctly posted in the relevant ledger deposit card, deposit journal as well as in cash book. The audit with the relevant record viz: deposit slips and deposit journal made available to them by the staff thoroughly checked and verified each and every entry and found correct and thereafter submitted the audit report. The appellant further stated in her reply to the charge sheet/statement of allegations rebutting the charges leveled against her stating that the accused Muhammad Rafique UDC had been changing the pages, making over writings and fake entries besides forging signatures of the superiors as well as of the appellant in the relevant record. The appellant had not been provided relevant record pertaining to the period under audit of the appellant. The inquiry committee summoned the appellant and opportunity of cross-- examination of the witnesses was provided to the appellant. The appellant also personally pointed out to the committee that in addition to the appellant, the audit was also conducted by Syed Najeeb Shah and by Syed Mehdi and none of the witnesses in the inquiry ever implicated the appellant in the fraud committed by Muhammad Rafique by manipulating fake entries and forged signatures of the appellant in the relevant record.
3. Consequent upon the submission of the inquiry report by the committee, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant along-with copy of inquiry report. The appellant in pursuance thereof submitted her reply to the show cause rebutting the charges levelled as contained in the statement of allegations. The Director General, National Savings Islamabad awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service. It is pertinent to place on record that a criminal case was also registered vide FIR # 01 of 2012 dated 05.01.2012 under Sections 409/420/468/467/471/34, PPC read with Section-5(2) Act, 1947 with Crime Circle, FIA. Hyderabad which had been challaned in the Special Judge, Central Anticorruption, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned major penalty of dismissal from service, hence this appeal.
4. The respondents in parawise comments submitted that being inspecting Officer she was assigned audit inspection of the Sambara Tower Brnnch for the 01.11.2005 to 30.09.2007. She was supposed to conduct complete audit of all transactions made during the said period. She completely failed to check the fraud/irregularities/fictitious entries. The other two officers viz: Najeeb khmed Shah and Syed Muhammad Mehdi, Assistant Directors were also proceeded under Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 on account of and penalized and awarded major and minor penalties resnefficiencypectively. The respondents vehemently denied stating that appellant was heard in person by authorized officer on 26.02.2013 and mthority viz: Director General, on the recommendation of authorized officer and perusal of record and proceedings imposed major penalty of dismissal from service. Moreover, appellant was proceeded under E&D Zules, 1973. She was served upon with a charge sheet dated 4.03.2012. An inquiry committee under the provisions of rules ibid vas duly constituted and such inquiry committee conducted the inquiry in an absolutely fair and transparent manner. Earlier on, a act-finding committee was constituted, the members of fact-finding committee were examined as PWs (prosecution witnesses) and apportunity to cross- examine the PWs was given to the appellant. The appellant had affirmed in her statement that she was called by the iquiry committee and her statement was recorded by the departmental inquiry committee consisting of Mr. Muhammad Khalid and Mr. Sajjad Mansoor Hafeez. The respondents in parawise comments further asserted that in financial institutions, audit inspection of accounts is main tool to enhance internal control in order to mitigate the risk of fraud/forgery. The negligence of inspecting officer provides chance to the delinquent to commit fraud.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the written synopsis and argued as well pleading that the appellant was not the only one who conducted audit inspection, but was also conducted by Syed Najeeb Shah and Syed Muhammad Mehdi and nom of the witnesses implicated the appellant in the fraud/defalcation/forgery committed by Muhammad Rafique who manipulated fake entries and incorporated into record. The appellant counsel further stated in his arguments that the appellant replied to the show cause notice issued on 18.01.2013; again had rebutted the same charges which were leveled against the appellant earlier on 05.04.2012. She had already responded so in reply to the charge sheet issued dated 14.03.2012 comprising of the same charges. The counsel also highlighted the criminal case registered against all these involved in the audit inspection including the appellant. The case now had been challenged in the Court of Central Judge, Anti corruption, Hyderabad. The learned counsel placed reliance on the rulings of the superior Courts reported as 2006 PLC (CS) 661, PLJ 2001 TR.0 (Service) 69, PLJ 2009 TRC (Service)
173 and 2006 PLC (CS) 165.
6. A charge sheet and statement of allegations was issued and inquiry committee was constituted in terms of Rule-5 read with Rule-6 of Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. A fact finding/preliminary inquiry committee consisting of two members accomplished the preliminary probe into the scam; the members of which were examined as prosecution witnesses
(PWs) by the inquiry committee constituted in terms of Rule-5 read with Rule-6 ibid. Based on the finding of the committee, a show cause notice was issued, hence due process of law/rules/procedure had completely been exhausted. But no where from the inquiry report is transpired nor any evidence is available on record and proceedings of the case as to the complicity or any involvement of the appellant in any manner whatsoever in the fraud/defalcation/forgery manipulated by the central character and architect of the fraud, Muhammad Rafique UDC in the Sambara Tower Branch of National Savings. But misconduct, is certainly established in terms of inefficiency and negligence "On the part of appellant, for the audit was not conducted in accordance with audit manual and standing instructions relating to audit as communicated and circulated from the office of the Director General, Central Directorate of National Savings from time to time. Had the audit been conducted as per manual instructions, such glaring irregularities and fraud could have been averted.
7. It is pertinently pointed out that similar audit was earlier conducted by Syed Najeeb Shah and Syed Muhammad Mehdi who, based on the inquiry conducted in the same branch were found negligent in similar fashion and awarded major penalty of reduction of two stages in time scale for two years without cumulative effect. In the us pendens, question arises as to why the appellant was discriminated upon? The major penalty of removal from service is certainly discriminatory and violation of the law and Constitution. The penalty of removal from service on account of inefficiency and negligence established as misconduct on the part of appellant is not commensurate or proportionate to the omission and commission as warranted. Moreover, in similar cases of inefficiency and negligence on the part of officials, as referred to above, the major penalty of removal from service was not imposed.
8. In view of the position as above, we are of the considered view that major penalty of reduction of two stages in time scale for two years without cumulative effect would suffice to meet the ends of justice. It is, therefore, ordered that the impugned order dated 15.05.2013 be set-aside and the appellant be reinstated into service. The intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due. No order as to costs.
9. Parties be informed accordingly.