' The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Punjab Province through Secretary Government of the Punjab, Local Government & Rural Development Department, Lahore, Director LG & RD, Multan, and A.D., LG & RD, Sahiwal, as respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed against order of dismissal of the appellant by A.D., LG & RD, Sahiwal on 5-4-1982 and Director LG & RD Multan on 11-10-1982.
3. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may be reinstated in service with all back benefits and the impugned order be declared null and void.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working in Union Council No, 190 Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal became ill and was granted three months' medical leave from 11-7-1981 to 10-10-1981 for the treatment of some eye disease. He was recommended rest for one month by Medical Superintendent District Hqrs. Hospital, Sahiwal. It was found that the appellant had not handed over the charge before proceeding on leave therefore, the Union Council Office was unlocked by A.C. Pakpattan on 16-8-1981. The appellant on learning that the U/C Office was unlocked he immediately ran to the office and removed some record pertaining to the affairs of embezzlement alleged to have been committed by him. The Project Manager reported the matter to the higher authorities and the appellant was suspended. The appellant filed a civil suit in the civil court of Civil Judge, Sahiwal on 27-10-1981 against the order of his supension on 24-8-1981 and show-cause notice, dated 22-10-1981. The Civil Judge, Sahiwal dismissed the case on 17-11-1981. The appellant filed appeal in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sahiwal and was able to secure stay order, dated 23-11-1981. However, this appeal was ultimately dismissed. The appellant was also charged for embezzlement of Rs,12,400 which he managed to keep with himself instead of spending the same on the school building. It was also found the school building was not complete but the money so allocated in this behalf had been fully spent. It was also reported by the Project Manager on 27-2-1982 that the appellant had fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs,500 from Habib Bank, Farid Town by opening a bogus account No, 1577. A cross cheque was released in the name of Miss Salma Mumtaz, an Adult Education Teachress and was handed over to the appellant for further delivery to the teachress. The appellant instead of handing it over to the teachress opened a bogus account in her name and withdrew the amount with fictitious signatures. A case of embezzlement was also registered against him and he was sentenced to 6 months' R.I. On 24-1- 1983 by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The appellant was dismissed for committing embezzlement of public funds and not handing over to the charge and taking away U/C record unlawfully. His efforts to get these orders set aside by the appellate authority also not succeeded.
Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and perused the record of this case very carefully with their assistance.
6. The crux of the matter is that the appellant tried to challenge the suspension order as well as the show-cause notice before the civil Courts of the country but miserably failed to establish his claim and was dealt accordingly under the law by the authorities for his act of embezzlement as well as act of negligence. I further find that the appellant has also been convicted by Anti-Corruption Judge for an act of fraud and forgery which he committed in the case of Miss Salma Mumtaz. After his conviction from the competent Court of law the appellant cannot be retained in service.
7. I have fully examined the proceedings which related to his dis- missal by the competent Court and find that no exception can be taken to the same as the action has been taken after fulfilling all the formalities of the legal procedure.
8. In view of above I do not find any reason to interfere with the two detailed order of the competent as well as the appellate authority A against the appellant in which the appellant has been dismissed.
9. The result is I dismiss the appeal without any merit. However there will be no order as to costs.