S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Maqsood Rabbani, Tehsildar, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, has filed this appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and the Full Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 8-1-1985/14-1-1985, be set aside and appellant's two increments be restored.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The appellant was issued charge sheet Annex/A alongwith Statement of Allegations, Annexure/B, placed on file in which it was alleged that while posted as Tehsildar/Sub-Treasury Officer, Murree, the appellant sanctioned eight vouchers without observing the procedure laid down in the Subsidiary Treasury Rules. The charge--sheet and Statement of Allegations were issued by the Authorised Officer/ Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi. The appellant submitted his reply dated 6-5-1982, in which he denied the charges completely, and submitted that a thorough enquiry had been held by the Anti-Corruption Police which proved that it was only Ghulam Safdar who was responsible for the fraud and the appellant as well as other Sub-Treasury Officers were cleared. However, the Authorised Officer appointed the Additional Deputy Commissioner(G), Rawalpindi, as Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer submitted his report in which he held as under:- "The perusal of the whole record would show that the STO was never a party to the embezzlement/ fraud. It was only the mischievous mind of Ghulam Safdar Sub-Accountant who has created troubles not only for himself but also for Treasury officers. "
However, in the end the Enquiry Officer observed that the appellant was only negligent in the performance of his duties. Thereafter a de novo enquiry was ordered by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of various witnesses including Mian Fazalur Rehman's the then District Accounts Officer as well as Saeedud Din, Superintendent, Administration Branch (Prosecutor) who were cross-examined by the appellant as well as his successor Akram Bhatti. The de novo enquiry resulted as under:- "Mr. Maqsood Rabbani had however no part whatsoever in the preparation of the forged documents. There is not even the slightest evidence to the contrary. Neither did he sanction any payment with the knowledge that the Authorities in question were bogus or the persons appearing as payees were fake. This part of the affair had been master-minded by Ghulam Safdar in a perfect manner."
The second Enquiry Officer also held that the appellant was at the most negligent in the performance of his duties. The de novo enquiry was not processed through the Authorised Officer but it was taken up by the Authority directly who issued notice of personal hearing dated 17-4-1984.
The appellant submitted his reply as per Annexure/G of the file, and denied all the charges so levelled against him. However, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, by his order dated 8-1-1985. However, the appellant filed appeal before the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, which was head by Division Bench comprised of Mr. S.M. Nasim and Mr. Saeedul Hassan, Members, Board of Revenue, which modified the penalty of stoppage of two increments as without cumulative effect.
The appeal was filed on 6-6-1985 before this Tribunal, when judgment of Full Board was not in the field, but the same has now been placed on record during the pendency of appeal. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had observed all the Rules and instructions relating to the payment of pensions to the pensioners. The payments mentioned in the charge sheet related to the pensions which were drawn through different Banks. According to the instructions of the Finance Department all the Commercial Banks in Punjab were held responsible for any irregularity and repayments of such amounts if these are found to be wrong. He has further submitted that central Accounts of Sub-Treasury, Murree were pending/incomplete since 21-8-1979, which was clear from the letters written by the appellant as Tehsildar/Sub- Treasury Officer to the District Accounts Officer, as well as Federal Treasury Office but they did not depute any body to finalize or complete these accounts. According to him the fraud was committed by Ghulam Safdar Sub-Accountant alone, which fact has been proved from record. He has relied on the result of thorough enquiry held by Anti-Corruption Police which proved that it was only Ghulam Safdar who was responsible for the fraud and the appellant as well as other Sub- Treasury Officers were cleared. He has referred to the result of two enquiries held in this case, which according to him, were unanimous in decision, that the appellant was not guilty for any fraud and if. At all, it was only negligence. With regard to the particular charge that 8 vouchers were signed by the appellant, he has submitted that out of 8 vouchers, six vouchers fell in the period of tenure of appellant, and two were out side. During the enquiry only photo copies of such 6 vouchers were produced. In spite of repeated requests of the appellant, original vouchers were not produced before the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the entire affair was fictitious because neither the basis of the payments viz. Authorities nor the vouchers were produced in original. He has vehemently assailed the observation of the learned Member, Board of Revenue that the appellant himself admitted that he had signed the disputed vouchers and has submitted that this was factually wrong due to some misunderstanding, as the record would clearly show that he never signed any voucher and there was nothing but forgery. With regard to the charge of negligence, it has been submitted that the same was misconceived. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant could only be negligent if the relevant documents viz. Authorities for pensioners or Pension Payment order had been prepared and deposited in the Sub-Treasury for safe-custody and appellant could not have consulted those authorities or Pension Payment Orders before passing the vouchers. According to him, in this case neither there was any authority nor pension payment Order, whereas Ghulam Safdar prepared, passed and signed vouchers himself fictitiously over and above the appellant, therefore, the appellant had no chance to detect this fraud at any stage. In the end it has been submitted that the appellant has put in 19 years of service and his entire record was unblemished. According to him assuming for the sake of arguments but without conceding that there had been some negligence, as alleged, even in that case, it did not constitute inefficiency within the meaning of the term as used in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975.
According to him it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1977 SC 24, that first lapse on the part of the civil servant does not amount to inefficiency because it is such a state of mind which has a persistant character and cannot be got rid of by a civil servant in spite of efforts. He has argued that this Tribunal has also followed this law in a large number of cases so decided by it.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has defended the two judgments of the Board of Revenue and also adopted the comments so submitted by the Board of Revenue, in defence of their judgments and has prayed that the appeal be dismissed, as negligence by itself, was a misconduct and cannot be taken out of the context of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and will narrow the ambit of arguments of this case, as it will be an exercise in futility to give entire allegations so made against the appellant in this case as well as his defence because the same issue has been concluded in the two separate enquiries conducted in this case, one under the order or Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and the second under the orders of Member (Rev), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, wherein while giving history of the case, mentioned the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officers, therefore, we need not repeat the same. Both the Enquiry Officers have fully exonerated the appellant from all the allegations pertaining to fraud and forgery etc. But in the end have concluded that some sort of negligence has occurred on the part of the appellant.
8. During the course of arguments, we asked the learned District Attorney to show us the disputed documents about which observation has been made by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, that appellant has admitted his fault by saying that he signed the disputed documents. We have seen the documents produced before us and find that the original are wanting whereas the signatures on the photostat copies have been denied by the appellant. In view of this denial it was incumbent upon the Authority as well as Appellate Authority to get the signatures of the appellant fresh and. Have a comparison from the proper forum i.e. Forensic Laboratory Punjab. So in view of this fact which is uncontroverted on record, we are of the considered opinion that the observation so made by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was misconceived due to some misunderstanding. After clearing this issue, we will now advert to the unanimous opinion of two Enquiry Officers who have considered the appellant only having been negligent. Learned counsel for the appellant has considered this finding as misconcieved on the ground that the appellant could only be negligent, if the relevant documents Authority for Pensioners or Pension Payment Order had been prepared and deposited in the Sub-Treasury for safe-custody and the appellant could not have consulted those Authorities or Pension Payment Orders before passing the vouchers. We have no dispute with this argument as we find that in this case neither there was any Authority nor Pension Payment Order as Ghulam Safdar prepared, passed and signed vouchers himself fictitiously over and above the appellant. Be that it may, we cannot remain oblivious of the ruling PLD 1977 SC 24, in which it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, that first lapse on the part of a civil servant would not amount to inefficiency' because it is such a state of mind which has a persistent character and cannot be get rid of by a civil servant in spite of efforts. With regard to first lapse their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that it may be ignored. We have taken into account 19 years service record of the appellant and find the same is unblemished.
9. In view of the above and following the guideline given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and following our own judgments delivered from time to time, on such issue, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant's first lapse of negligence in 19 years service, is liable to be ignored, particularly when it has been proved on record that it was master mind of Ghulam Safdar who initiated large number of vouchers etc. Over and above the appellant, and thus was alone involved in the said act of forgery and fraud.
10. The result is, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and restore the two increments of the appellant.
There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.
M.Y.H./119/Sr.P