' CHAUDHARY ABDUL RASHID (MEMBER).--This is an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, filed on 30-12-1986 by Mr. Sabir Ali, Senior Clerk, WAPDA, Muzaffargarh against the order dated 26-8-1986 of the S.E. Grid System Operation Circle, WAPDA Multan imposing the Censure and recovery of Rs,8,000 and the order dated 2-12-1986 of the Chief Engineer (GSO)
WAPDA, Lahore rejecting the departmental appeal. He has impleaded the Chairman, WAPDA, Chief Engineer, WAPDA, S.E. (GSO), WAPDA and Xen. SS. & T Division, WAPDA Sahiwal as respondents. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 17-6-1986 and has been contested by the respondents.
2. The facts of the case are that appellant joined as Junior Clerk in the West Pakistan Electricity Department on 12-8-1958 and his services were transfer d to WAPDA in 1959. While in WAPDA he was promoted as Head Clerk on 24-4-1975. While working as Head Clerk in SS & T Division, WAPDA, Sahiwal a case F.I.R. No, 80, dated 9-2-1977 was registered against him under section 409, P.P.C.
Read with 5(2)/47, P.C.A. For the embezzlement of an amount of Rs,8,000 on 30-12-1976. Another F.I.R. No, 82/86, dated 11-2-1977 was registered against him under section 380, P.P.C. For theft of important files pertaining to cash. The following charge-sheet was issued on 1-2-1977:
(1) That you had embezzled Rs,8,000 during your tenure as Head Clerk SS & T Division, Sahiwal on 30-12-1976 by means of fraudulent entry in the Divisional cash book and shown this amount maliciously as advance against the name of AET Bahawalnagar.
(2) That you were advised to submit departure report immediately on account of your reversion and transfer as Senior Clerk to SS & T Division, Muzaffargarh but you did not submit departure and instead absconded from duty.
(3) That you were forcibly relieved from the office of.XEN. SS & T Division, Sahiwal on 4-1-1977 F.N.
And you were supposed to resume duty as Senior Clerk SS & T Division, Muzaffargarh but you did not report arrival at Muzaffargarh Division. You are, therefore, wilfully found absent from duty with effect from 4-1-1977 to 10-2-1977 without any reason/intimation.
(4) That during the night on 9-2-1977 you got into room of Head Clerk SS & T Division, Sahiwal maliciously and opened the Almirah by means of duplicate key retained by you for this purpose.
Important record consisting of about 18 Nos. Files which contained receipts signed by S.D.O.'s in respect of temporary imprests issued to them from time to time, were thus stolen away by you, in the case of embezzlement.
(5) That you have forged one of the previous receipt of AE(T), Bahawalnagar amounting to Rs,8,000 and you are using this forged receipt as a defence in the case of embezzlement of Rs,8,000.
' The S.E.,G.S Operation Circle, Multan passed the following order on 26-8-1986: ' Read charge-sheet served to the employee vide this office letter No, 1213, dated 1-2-1977.
' Read Interim defence reply received from the official vide Xen. SS & T Division, Sahiwal letter No, 1597, dated 26-4-1977.
' Read Enquiry Committee report sent to Chief Engineer (GSO), Lahore vide this office letter No, 5323, dated 27-7-1978.
' Read Final defence reply to the charge-sheet received with Xen. SS & T Division, Muzaffargarh letter No, 3986, dated 24-9-1986.
' Read Personal hearing given to the employee dated 11-3-1986.
' Read Final show-cause notice served to the employee vide this office letter No, 6026, dated 10-8- 1986.
' Read IInd Enquiry Committee report conducted by Xen. SS & T Division, Multan along with 3 members.
' Read Final personal hearing given to the employee on dated 24-8-1986. After giving due consideration to the above proceeding, I Maqbool Zaman Khan, Superintending Engineer (GSO)
Circle, Multan being the competent Authority hold Mr. Sabir Ali Senior Clerk, SS & T Division, Muzaffargarh guilty of the charge of embezzlement of Rs,8,000 by making fraudulent entry in the cash book of SS & T Division, Sahiwal dated 30-12-1976 and award him the following penalty under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees E & D Rules, 1978.
(1) Censured.
(2) Recovery of Rs,8,000.
3. The departmental appeal against this order was rejected by the Chief Engineer on 2-12-1986.
Hence the present appeal,
4. The learned counsel for the WAPDA took preliminary objections that the Punjab Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction because the appellant is an employee of the WAPDA by virtue of provision of section 17(1-B) of WAPDA Act. He further submitted that the appellant is estopped from claiming that he is on deputation from the Punjab Government by his own conduct, because he was acquitted in Case No, 44 of 1981 being the employee of Central Government and because sanction for prosecution had not been obtained from the Ministry of Interior, Islamabad. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Punjab Service Tribunal has jurisdiction in this case because the appellant is the employee of the Punjab Government and he was transferred to WAPDA when the employees of the Electricity Department were transferred to WAPDA. He placed on record a copy of letter dated 6-3.1988 from the Xen. SS & T Division, Muzaffargarh to Secretary, WAPDA House, Lahore in respect of seven employees of the Provincial Government including the appellant who were on deputation from the Provincial Government transferred to WAPDA en bloc. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the honorable Supreme Court reported as 1981 SCM R 1178.
5. We have given anxious thought to the arguments of both sides. The appellant was an employee of West Pakistan Electricity. Department and was transferred to WAPDA in 1959 alongwith other Electricity staff. He belongs to the area falling in Punjab and on dissolution of West Pakistan will be treated to have been allocated to Punjab Government under section 2 of Employees of WAPDA (Allocation to Provinces) Order 1979 (President's Order 24 of 1979). He is, therefore, Punjab Government civil servant on deputation to WAPDA. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is applicable to the facts of this case also. As regards the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant is estopped from claiming to be an employee of Punjab Government, we are of the view that the objection has no weight. The judgment of Special Judge (Central), Lahore dated 15-4-1985 is simply to the effect that Chief Engineer, WAPDA was not competent to sanction prosecution under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 and only the Ministry of Interior, Islamabad has the powers to accord such sanction for prosecution of a Central Government employee. This judgment neither makes the appellant a WAPDA employee or take away from him' the status of a dcputationist. The basis on which he was treated as Central Government employee is not clear to us. It is further not clear whether the plea that the appellant was Central Government employee was taken by the appellant himself. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant is a civil servant of Punjab on I deputation to WAPDA to whom Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 are applicable and who is amenable to our jurisdiction and not the Federal Service Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
(1) that the I & P Department Government of the Punjab was the competent authority to proceed against the appellant under the E & D Rules, 1975 and not Officers of WAPDA under the WAPDA E & D Rules, 1978.
(2) that the appellant was acquitted in both the criminal cases registered against him vide judgments dated 14-4-1985 and 17-2-1979. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction for the imposition of penalties imposed by the Departmental authorities which may be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for WAPDA submitted that the I & P Department had delegated the powers to the WAPDA for proceeding against the employees of the Punjab Government of the former Electricity Department who were serving with them vide SGA & I D. Notification No, SOR-III, 13-5/81, dated 19-5-1982. The provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules and D WAPDA E & D Rules are similar and the mere fact that WAPDA Rules have been quoted in the proceedings does not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed as a result thereof. The learned counsel for WAPDA submitted that the acquittal in both the criminal cases was on technical grounds. F The Departmental proceedings were taken independently of the criminal proceedings.
The judgments therefore do not in any way affect the departmental proceedings.
7. We have made deep appraisal of the record and have given our anxious consideration to the arguments from both sides. The appellant was charge-sheeted. The defence was considered.
Enquiries were held and personal hearing was given to him. The requirements of the rules as well as natural justice has been fully met with. We have also perused the judgment dated 15-4-1985 of the Special Judge (Central), Lahore in the case registered under section 409 for misappropriation of Rs,8,000 on 30-12-1976. The appellant was acquitted because the Special Judge held that the Chief Engineer was not competent to sanction the prosecution under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 and this could have been done by the Ministry of Interior only.
According to the judgment dated 17-2-1979 of the A.C./M.I.C. 30, Sahiwal, the appellant has been acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt as would appear from the concluding para. Of the judgment as reproduced below:- ' The evidence on the plea of alibi has not been demolished by the prosecution. The recovery of files or the key has not been made by the prosecution. Office Registers have not been produced to substantiate the factum of missing files. The evidence of chowkidar has not been supported by any other source to corroborate his version of accused's entering the office to remove files. This haphazard and insufficient evidence is not sufficient to incriminate accused. In my view neither the investigation has been conducted thoroughly nor the WAPDA office has afforded this Court with material to go deeper into the allegations. The accused in my view would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. I am, therefore, of the view that there is insufficient evidence on the file against the accused who is acquitted of the charge.
8. We are, therefore, of the considered view that these judgments are of no help to the appellant. So far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, the penalties were imposed after due enquiry and in accordance with law. The Punjab Government have delegated powers to the WAPDA in respect of its staff of Electricity Department, on deputation with WAPDA. The mention of WAPDA E & D Rules does not vitiate the departmental proceedings because the two sets of rules are more or less the same and the ends of justice have been fully met in this case. The appellant was provided full opportunity defend himself. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere in the matter.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.