' MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).-The appellant who was employed in the Office of Local Audit Officer (Army), Gujranwala Cantt. During 1977, was charge-sheeted for the allegations that he failed to bring to the notice of the said Office the financial irregularities and deficiencies committed in 99-Medium Arty. Which were disclosed to him by J.Q.M. Of that regiment for seeking his help to cover the deficiency; and that he received Rs, 800 from J.Q.M. Of 99-Medium Regiment Arty. For the purchase of rice to cover the deficiency occurred in the ration store on account of misappropriation. The appellant, in reply to the first charge, stated that the position was explained by him to his Group Superintendent, Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, as such he did not feel it necessary to bring the case to the notice of the Local Audit Office personally. In reply to the second charge the appellant submitted that his younger brother was a zamindar and was rice trader also. The J.Q.M.
Of 99-Medium Regiment Arty., asked the appellant to help him in purchasing some quantity of basmati rice from the appellant's brother and gave him an amount of Rs, 800 for payment to his younger brother as the cost of the rice which were to be supplied by him. The appellant gave the amount to his younger brother but he did not agree to supply the rice at the rate of 100 per maund and returned the money to him who repaid the same to the said J.Q.M. The Deputy C. M. A. Who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, conducted an enquiry and recorded his findings holding the appellant not guilty of both the charges. The Controller of Military Accounts and Pensions who was the authorized officer in the matter, did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer for the reasons recorded in his order and therefore, holding the appellant guilty of the charges, imposed upon him the penalty of withholding of his next annual increment for two years without accumulative effect. Thereafter the Military Accountant-General, the authority in respect of the appellant, called for the record of the case in his revisional jurisdiction conferred on him by rule 6-A of the Government Servants (E & Rules, 1973, and vide his order, dated 28th February, 1979 he concluded that the authorised officer has awarded an extremely light punishment to the appellant.
He revised the said punishment and ordered the recovery of Rs, 5,000 from the appellant and his compulsory retirement from service. His departmental appeal was also rejected as conveyed to him vide D,C.M.A.'s. Letter, dated 4th December, 1979. He then filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record placed before us. Regarding the first charge the authorised officer held the view that mere admission of Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Accountant, who was a co-accused of the appellant in the matter, is not enough to substantiate the assertion of the appellant that he has informed the said Mr. Muhammad Yousuf about the financial irregularities which came to the notice of the appellant. We, however, failed to see any reason for making a misstatement by the Accountant (Mr. Muhammad Yousaf) that the appellant informed him of about the financial irregularities. Therefore, we are of the view that on this account the appellant cannot be held guilty of misconduct and the findings of the authorised officer and the authority, in this respect, are not based on good grounds. Regarding the second charge, as stated above, the appellant has admitted throughout that he had received Rs, 800 from the J.Q.M. Of 99-Medium Regiment Arty. For the purchase of rice from his younger brother for an illegitimate motive of covering the deficiencies of rice in the stock. On this basis, however, the departmental authorities have grossly erred in concluding that the appellant had been carrying on his private business which was not permissible under the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules. There was no evidence whatsoever that the appellant was running any private business. Perhaps this fact existed only in the minds of the concerned departmental authorities.
Nevertheless, we cannot remain unconscious of the position that the appellant had abetted the unlawful and illegitimate attempt made by the J.Q.M., 99-Medium Regiment Arty. Of secretly purchasing rice to cover the deficiencies. For, according to the appellant himself, he had not only agreed to abet the unlawful attempt but in fact received a sum of Rs, 800 from J.Q.M. And paid the same to his younger brother. It was the appellant's younger brother who, did not agree to supply the rice at the rate of Rs, 100 per maund. This conduct of the appellant is certainly exceptionable and rendered' him liable to be dealt with and punished for misconduct. We, therefore, modify the order of the authorised officer to the extent that the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for two years imposed therein shall be deemed to have been imposed for the above said misconduct.
3. Coming to the order of the authority in our view, though the Military Accountant-General, the authority in the matter, was competent to call for the record of the case in his revisional jurisdiction and pass such an order as he may deem fit yet any order can be passed by him only for the good reasons to be recorded. It may be mentioned here that he has recorded no reason for enhancement of the punishment imposed on the appellant by the authorised officer. He was contented only on concluding without any base or evidence whatsoever that the punishment awarded by the authorised officer was extremely light. On this account only his order is bad in law and cannot be upheld. Moreover on merits also, as aforesaid, the penalty of stoppage of the increment only, in our opinion, would be the most appropriate punishment in the circumstances of this case. Neither the penalty of compulsory retirement from service nor the recovery of Rs, 5,000 for whicn no reason whatsoever has been given, is sustainable and is hereby set aside. In the result the appeal is disposed of in terms that the order of the authority, dated 28th February, 1979 is set aside and the order of the authorised officer, dated 3rd May, 1978 is modified to the extent that the penalty of withholding annual increment for two years without cumulative effect shall stand imposed on the appellant for misconduct committed by him by abeting the unlawful and illegitimate attempt to cover the deficiencies of rice in ration store. Since, however, the order of the Authority stands set aside, the appellant shall be reinstated into service with all the consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.