' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Muhammad Anwar, respondent, joined service in 1972 as peon in the National Saving Centre, Multan Road, Lahore. He was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1974 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in 1975. On 4-9-1982, when he was posted as incharge of the Centre at Raiwand he was served with a charge-sheet inter alia on the allegations that he had temporarily misappropriated certain amounts entrusted to him or belonging to the Centre. He submitted a reply which was found unsatisfactory. An inquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges. During the course of the inquiry, the respondent made a statement to the effect. {{URDU TEXT}} ' In view of his admission, the charges were held proved against him and by an order dated 12-5- 1983 he was removed from service. He filed an appeal before the Chief Director of the Centre but it was dismissed. He then preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. In the Tribunal he did not press his appeal on merits but contended that the penalty of removal from service imposed upon him was excessive. Nevertheless, the learned Tribunal took the view that it was a case of late posting of money in the relevant register and that there was no misappropriation of the funds. Accordingly, it modified the penalty awarded by the Department by converting it into one of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. From the order of the learned Tribunal, the Department has come in appeal to this Court.
2. It is to be noticed that in the charge-sheet allegations of misappropriation of funds were made against the respondent. In the course of the inquiry, the respondent admitted that he had used the money entrusted to him for his own purpose. Before the Tribunal he did not press the appeal on merits but merely asked for reduction of the penalty. It is, therefore, difficult to see how the learned Tribunal could convert findings of misappropriation into those of mere late posting of moneys in the relevant register. In its judgment it did not care to state why it had elected to ignore the admission of the respondent himself which he made before the Inquiry Officer. Clearly, on his own admission, the charges of misappropriation stood established and the findings of the learned Tribunal to the contrary cannot be supported.
3. The respondent was working in a financial institution and his duties included dealing with moneys entrusted to him by the public. A charge of misappropriation, even though for a short duration, against a person working in a post that the respondent held, could not be taken lightly.
The Department had, therefore, sufficient justification for removing him from service. The learned Tribunal should not have, therefore, interfered with the penalty awarded to him.
4. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and restore the departmental order of removal from service. There will be no order as to costs.