' MUHAMMAD 1RSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).-The appellant, then an Accountant in the respondent- Department, was charged under the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973, for misconduct, corruption and inefficiency, connected with making fraudulent payments and preparation of fake bills. The Authorised Officer, namely, the Controller of Military Accounts and Pensions, having decided that it was not necessary to have an inquiry conducted by an Enquiry Officer, served a notice, dated 14th April, 1976 on the appellant requiring him to show cause within fourteen days of receipt thereof, as to why the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him for the charges mentioned in the show-cause notice. The appellant submitted a reply, dated 27th July, 1976 to the said show-cause notice. The Authorised Officer, after considering the reply/explanation given by the appellant, came to the conclusion that the charges had been proved and that the misconduct of the appellant called for a major penalty. He, accordingly, recommended to the Authority appellant's dismissal from service. The Authority, namely, Military Accountant-General, Rawalpindi, after considering the recommendations of the Authorised Officer and the explanation of the appellant, by his order, dated 8th March, 1977, imposed upon the appellant the penalty of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by the appellant to the Financial Advisor (Defence) was also rejected and conveyed to the appellant by letter, dated 11th August, 1977. The appellant has challenged the order of his dismissal by way of the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the relevant record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has first contended that the Authorised Officer had pre- decided to dismiss the appellant from service as he expressed this intention clearly in the charge- sheet by observing that be held him (the appellant) guilty of misconduct/corruption and inefficienc). According to the learned counsel this bias on the part of the Authorised Officer, vitiated the entire proceedings. It is correct that such an observation had been made in the charge-sheet, but it seems to us that the same is only a bad drafting and, in no way, amounted to prejudice the case of the appellant. The reading of the charge-sheet, as a whole, clearly shows that the Authorised Officer formed a tentative view that the appellant was guilty of misconduct and corruption and to find out the correctness of this tentative view, he provided the appellant an opportunity of showing cause. Such a drafting defect in the charge-sheet, in our view, does not affect the validity or legality of the proceedings.
4. The learned counsel next submitted that a reasonable opportunity of explaining his case was denied to the appellant, inasmuch as neither any witness was examined by the Authorised Officer nor the appellant was permitted to adduce any evidence. It was emphasized by the learned counsel that, in the circumstances of the case, the discretion of dispensing with the enquiry had been arbitrarily exercised because it was a fit case wherein, in the interest of justice, the enquiry should have been conducted by an Enquiry Officer. We do not see any force in the contention of the learned counsel. In fact, the allegation were first investigated during a Court of Enquiry in which several other persons were involved. Though in the Court of Enquiry, the appellant, being a civilian, was not dealt with as an accused, yet he was fully associated therewith. The record of the Court of Enquiry and its findings in this respect were available to the Authorised Officer when he served the show-cause notice to the appellant. There was sufficient material before the Authorised Officer to arrive at a tentative view and thus he was justified in dispensing with the enquiry and in proceeding straightaway by serving the show-cause notice on the appellant and calling for his explanation instead of appointing an Enquiry Officer or an Enquiry Committee. We are, therefore, of the view that even the alleged irregularities in the proceedings did not prejudice the appellant in his defence. More particularly, because the appellant himself confessed his guilt by admitting in his explanation, as well as in the memo. Of the present appeal, that the other culprits in the case succeeded in befooling the appellant and that it was a case of bona fide error on the part of the appellant committed in good faith and in reliance on his subordinate staff. This plea of the appellant is also devoid of any force. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the appellants' reply thereto establishes the guilt of the appellant to our satisfaction. Indeed such a glaring misconduct cannot be considered a bona fide error.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the appellant has rightly been held guilty of the charges and has justifiably been punished therefor. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties to be informed.