Tauqeer Ahmed Khan, Member. The above-named appellant, by means of this appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, has prayed as under:- "A) Direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant and to pay back benefits to the appellant as admissible under the law; B) To set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 01.12.2004 passed by the incompetent authority; C) To direct the respondents to decide the pending applications dated 20.11.2020 and 14.10.2020 for reinstatement; D) Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case".
2. The background and facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant had served the respondents for 18 years, When he was transferred vide letter dated 29.09.2020 vice Mr. Shahid Raza Zaidi. During the entire period of employment, he had never been proceeded against departmentally nor even was ever conveyed any adverse ACR prior to charge sheet dated 30.04.2001 containing false and baseless allegations and statement of allegations incompetently issued by Senior Post Master. The inquiry committee was appointed to hold inquiry against the appellant vide letter dated 30.04.2001, to which appellant submitted his reply, but he was never associated thereafter id the so-called inquiry conducted by the incompetently appointed inquiry committee and the appellant was surprised to receive show cause notice dated 25.08.2004 accompanying therewith inquiry proceedings of Mr. Shahid Raza instead of the appellant. The appellant represented against this vide representation dated 01.09.2004 and 21.09.2004. The appellant was served with the impugned letter of dismissal which was represented against and hearing at this stage was granted vide letter dated 27.03.2006, but the appeal of the appellant was rejected thereafter. That prior to this appellant filed an Appeal No. 98(K)CS/2006 which was dismissed by this Court on 28.02.2011. The appellant was acquitted from the charge in Crime No. 04/2001 and 29.09.2020 the appellant submitted applications dated 20.10.2020 and 20.11.2020 to the respondents for his reinstatement, but the same remained un-responded; hence, this appeal.
3. The respondents resisted the appeal by filing the comments, wherein it was that the appellant had earlier filed service Appeal No. 98(K)CS/2006 before this Tribunal against the punishment of dismissal from service, which was decided vide judgment dated 28.02.2011; hence, this appeal is not maintainable, which is barred under the principles of `RESJUDICATA'.
It was further stated that the Senior Postmaster the then competent authority can appoint inquiry committee under section-5 of the Remova from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. It was further stated that neither the appellant submitted his written defence nor appeared before the inquiry officer to defend himself, hence pointing fingers on inquiry at this belated stage has no value in the eyes of law. Furthermore, failure to deny charges would mean tacit admission of Charges. By failing to controvert allegations levelled against him, the appellant had infact, admitted the said allegations. Appellant under such circumstances was awarded penalty in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on 2009 PLC (CS) 211. It was further stated that the appellant did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. Competent authority under RSO, 2000 awarded him punishment of dismissal from service. He filed appeal, appellate authority granted him personal hearing on 03.04.2006 and after hearing the decision of competent authority was upheld. Against his dismissal from government service, appellant had earlier approached this tribunal in Appeal No. 98(K)CS/2006 which was dismissed; hence, instant second appeal has no locus standi and liable to be dismissed. It was also stated that criminal and departmental appeal are independent in, nature and can run in parallel on same charges and may even reach opposite findings without affecting each other and relied on 2009 SCM R 903. Hence, contention of the appellant that he has been acquitted from criminal charges has no nexus with the disciplinary proceedings which have attained finality.
4. We have heard the learned counsel, perused the record carefully including the written synopsis and the documents attached thereto.
5. First of all, we would take up the point of RESJUDICATN, as raised by the respondents. We are in agreement with the said contentions, (as the appeal of the appellant, preferred by him against his dismissal from service dated 01.12.2004, has already been dismissed by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 28.02.2011 passed in Appeal No. 98(K)CS/2006, as such, principle of `RESJUDICATA' is fully applicable in the matter/as the said appeal has already been decided on merits and no appeal against such judgment has been preferred by the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which attained finality and cannot be agitated at this belated stage. The point of `RESJUDICAT' has not been controverted by the appellant through any rejoinder nor during the arguments, neither responded to even in the written synopsis. In the earlier judgment passed, each and every aspect of the matter, as also raised in this appeal, has been taken into considerations and decided. Para- 6 of the judgment is reproduced for the sake of brevity: "6. We have considered the above arguments and also perused the record including the comments, filed on behalf of the respondents, a charge sheet alongwith statement of allegations, containing serious allegations of committing act of embezzlement/fraudulent discharge/mis- appropriation of DCs, was issued to the appellant. The said DCs were fraudulently presented in the New Town GPO and were discharged in favour of fraudulent elements, causing a loss of Rs.
67,73,400/-to the Government. The appellant was charged of failing to discharge his legitimate duties. The appellant in his reply to the said charge sheet did not deny the same specifically and clearly, but stated that he, being Clerk, has no power or authority to sign/verify passor sanction any cash amount on any instrument/saving certificate. He has specifically named certain persons, who were responsible for issuance of defence certificate and maintaining of stock register such as Qayyum/Wasi Haider, S.M.raza, Mat. Asma Khatoon. In reply to the querries made by the Tribunal, the respondents through a written statement had stated that Shahid Raza was dismissed from service, being a master mind of the fraud, Wasi Haider and Abdul Qayyum have since retired, but orders for their retirement stand withheld-pension/commutation dues are also withheld. Asma Khatoon, being an outsider lady, Who received the payment of defence savings certificate from New Town GOP on 02.12.2022 and 04.12.2000 fraudulently, stands absconder from her residence. The appellant has himself, produced a letter dated 30.04.2001, whereby inquiry committee was constituted. The inquiry was conducted against the appellant, wherein allegations levelled against the appellant were proved beyond any doubt. The contention of the appellant that the was not informed of holding of inquiry is not correct, as the statement of Postman furnished by him is a proof that he was informed to avail the opportunity granted to him by the inquiry committee, giving him sufficient timer. The appellant deliberately avoided to attend the inquiry and the committee was compelled to conduct the inquiry in his absence. In our view, since the appellant had not denied the allegations, levelled against him in the charge sheet, in clear and specific terms, therefore, inquiry was not required, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when allegations are denied, then the inquiry is necessary. The inquiry committee in his report, held the appellant guilty and recommended his ' dismissal, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The contentions, so raised, on behalf of the appellant, in our view, are mere technicalities".
As such, the principles of `RESJUDICATA' is fully attracted in the case in hand and applicable.
6. We have perused the charge sheet dated 30.04.2001, where serious allegations of embezzlement/fraudulent discharge misappropriation has been levelled against him causing a loss of Rs. 67,73,400/- to the department and the Government of Pakistan.
Thus, in our view, he is not entitled for any leniency to be shown to' him. In a case reported in 1990 SCM R 1214. the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to hold that, "on the admission of civil servant, charges of misappropriation stood established and the finding of the Service Tribunal to the contrary could not be supported. Charge of misappropriation, even though for a short duration, against a person working in a financial institution, could not be taken lightly". In another case reported in 2002 SCM R 753. "Charge of corruption/misappropriation was proved against the respondent. Under such circumstances, the appropriate forum for determining if he was to be allowed to continue in service or not was the Departmental Authority, whose opinion shall be given due weight, unless otherwise is shown. The Departmental Authority knows better than anybody else to decide such issue. After the charge of misappropriation/corruption is established, the normal punishment shall be removal/dismissal from service. Lenient view in such matters would destroy the fiber of discipline of service, besides encouraging others to resort such illegal activities as to enrich themselves by illegal means with impunity at the cost of welfare of the society for whose benefit they are employed. We are of the view that the respondent was not entitled to any leniency". In a case reported in 2009 SCM R 720. It has been observed by the Apex Court that, People employed in financial institutions dealt with public money and any negligence or default on their behalf could lead to loss of faith in such institutions. Once public had lost confidence it was extremely difficult, painstaking and time consuming to rehabilitate the same.
7. On the point whether criminal and departmental proceedings can run with each other, we may here rely on a judgment of the Apex Court as reported in 2021 PLC (CS) 1531 (Province of Punjab through Special Secretary, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Lahore and others vs. Khadim. Hussain Abbasi) wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Court as under: This Court has repeatedly held that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are not mutually exclusive, can be proceeded independently and acquittal in criminal proceedings does not affect the outcome of the departmental proceedings. It may be noted that departmental proceedings are undertaken under a different set of laws, are subject to different procedural requirements are based upon different evidentiary principles and a different threshold of proof is to be met. Criminal proceedings on the other hand are undertaken under a different set of laws, have different standards of proof are subject to different procedural requirements and different threshold of proof are required to be met. Therefore, acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot and does not automatically knock off the outcome of the departmental proceedings if all legal an procedural formalities and due process have been followed independently. In this context, reference may usefully be made to the case of Nazir Ahmed; Muhammad Iqbal, Shahid Wazir and shahid Masood Malik (ibid)".
8. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to accept the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
9. No order as to cost. Parties may be informed.