' A. 0, Raziur RAHMAN (MEMBER).--,This appeal ban been against an order, dated 11th Jaunary, 1979 passed by the Postmaster (Central); New Town Head Office, Karachi-5 removing the Appellant from service with immediate effect, at the time when he was holding the post of Sub-Post Master in the Post Office in Block 2, PECHS Karachi.
' The facts of the case are that on 13th November, 1978 an Anti-Revenue Leakage Squad, headed by the Deputy Controller of Post Offices ' (Investigation), Karachi paid a surprise visit to the Bahadrabad Night Post Office and allegedly found the Appellant at the counter selling postage stamps and stationery to the members of the public, although he was not posted there and was, therefore, an unauthorised person. On seeing the Deputy Controller entering the Post Office, he allegedly picked up a packet from the stamp box and tried to hide the same from the officer, but on persuasion and persistence he handed over the packet to the Deputy Controller. According to the departmental version, the packet contained used postage stamps of Re. 1 denomination, numbering 10 in all. This was in contravention of rule 394(a) of the Post Office Manual Volume II. On further search, it was alleged, another folder was recovered from the drawer of the counter, containing used stamps or stamps which had been removed from articles. Besides this, according to the allegation, a good number of articles which had been presented at the counter by the public were found bearing stamps which had either been previously used or removed from other articles. On the basis of these allegations the Appellant was charge-sheeted for misconduct, by the Post Master (Central), New Town Head Office, Karachi-5, through a memo. Dated 17th December, 1978. He was called upon to submit his defence to the charges within 10 days of the receipt of the memo. He was also asked to state whether he wanted to be heard in person or produce any witnesses or documents in his defence. The Appellant submitted his defence through a letter addressed to the Post Master (Central) on 8th January, 1979.
The Post Master considered the explanation submitted by the Appellant and, after examining the various points raised in the explanation, came to the finding that the charge of misconduct had been proved beyond doubt. He accordingly ordered his removal from, service with immediate effect on 11th January, 1979 as already mentioned at the beginning. Against this order, the Appellant preferred a departmental appeal before the Post Master General, Southern Circle, Karachi.- The appeal was considered by the Controller of Post Offices, Karachi, who rejected the appeal and passed a detailed order dated 10th April, 1979 giving reasons for the rejection. Against this order, the present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 19th May, 1979. The appeal was subsequently re-drafted and an amended memo. Filed on 13th February, 1980.
' In the memo. Of appeal, as amended, as well as in the detailed arguments adduced on behalf of the Appellant at the time of hearing, a large number of points were put forward in support of the contention that the order appealed against suffered from several legal infirmities and was based on factually incorrect findings. It was contended, among other things, that-
(I) the Post Master (Central), New Town Head Offices, Karachi was not competent to charge-sheet the Appellant as he was not the Authorised Officer under the rules ;
(2) that he was also not competent to pass the dismissal order as the Authority under the rules ;
(3) that he could not act both as Authorised Officer and Authority, as it was against the letter and spirit of the rules it was further contended that the Appellant was materially prejudiced in his defence by being denied a reasonable opportunity to show cause, because it was not made clear in the show-cause notice whether the proceedings were intended to be taken under Rule 5 (1) (ii) or 5 (1) (iii) of the (E &D) Rules. 1973 and it was not made clear as to which particular penalty was proposed to be inflicted. It was also alleged that the Appellant's evidence in his defence was also not examined. As for the merit of the case, it was claimed that no used stamps were recovered from the possession of the Appellant and that whatever was recovered was recovered from the drawer of the Packer, who had slipped away at the time of the raid by the Anti-Leakage of Revenue Squad.
4. After hearing the parties in detail and perusing the relevant documents, we have come to the conclusion that the order of removal from service passed by Respondent No. I Post Master (Central) - and upheld by Respondent No. 3 (Controller) of Post Offices was fully justified in the circumstances of the case, both legally and on facts. So far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned, we are fully satisfied that the proceedings were correctly conducted by officers duly authorised under the rules and that no material irregularity was committed which could be held to have caused any prejudice to the Appellant. Under a Notification, dated 23rd February, 1978 the Post Master was designated as the Authorised Officer in respect of employees of Grade 7, to which the Appellant belonged. He was, thus, competent to issue the show-cause notice to the Appellant.
He was also by the same notification designated as the Authority competent to award punishment.
He issued the show cause notice, considered the explanation offered by the Appellant, an passed the order of removal under the relevant rules. The defense put forward by the Appellant was fully considered and examined and a decision taken after full perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention that because the Authority and the Authorised Officer were combined in the same person, prejudice was caused to the Appellant and the proceedings vitiated o that account. Similarly, the plea that the proceedings stood vitiated because there was no indication given whether these were initiated uncle 5 (1)(ii) or 5 (Win) of the E & 1) Rules is not tenable. Actually, the text of the charge-sheet provides no scope for doubting that the Authorised Officer had decided that it was not necessary to have enquiry conducted through an Enquiry Officer or an Enquiry Committee. It is also clear from the Explanation offered by the Appellant that he fully understood the position that he was required to submit his explanation to the officer issuing the charge-sheet and no enquiry proceedings were to be taken up. The other argument adduced on behalf of the Appellant, namely, that in the charge-sheet, it was not specifically mentioned as to which of the penalties was proposed to be inflicted and this materially affected the defence but forward by the Appellant, has no legs to stand on. The rule nowhere prescribes that the charge-sheet or show-cause notice must specify the exact punishment proposed to be inflicted. But, from the facts narrated in the charge-sheet and the charge of misconduct preferred against him, it should have been clear to the Appellant that any of the man penalties could be inflicted. . The contention that the evidence on behalf of the Appellant was not recorded is also baseless, as he did not, in reply so the charge-sheet, propose to adduce any evidence or even ask for being given a hearing. Considering all these facts and circumstances, there is no doubt whatsoever that the departmental proceedings did not suffer from any legal flaws which would be taken to have vitiated the outcome.
5. As regards the facts of the case against the Appellant, on the basis of which he was punished, the perusal of the record discloses that the Appellant, while serving in one Post Office, went to another Post Office and indulged in illegal and fraudulent transaction by selling to the public used stamps as well as stamps removed from articles posted by members of the public, that he was caught red-handed when he was trying to hide a Packet which contained a number of used stamps and that he could not offer any reasonable explanation for his presence in the Post Office and of his sitting at the counter and selling stamps, although he was not posted there and bad no business to participate in the working of that Post Office. The plea taken by him that the real culprit was the packer, who had slipped away at the sight of the Squad, is contradicted by his own statement, made before the Deputy Controller of Post Offices, in which he has stated that since the Packer had gone out, he had been asked by the Sub-Post Master Incharge of the Post Office to sell the stamps.
6. In view of the above we are unable to find any justification for doubting the veracity of the report made by the head of the Anti-Leakage of Revenue Squad, who was a responsible officer of the rank of Deputy Controller of Post Offices and who could not have had any understandable reason for falsely implicating the Appellant. Therefore, on the basis of facts also, the result of the proceedings cannot be assailed.
7. In the result the Appeal is dismissed.
8. No order as to costs.
9. Parties to be informed.