SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The instant appeal is directed against Government Order No, Admin/S.O- iv/General-8/84, dated 10-7-1984 by which on the basis of a report of the Inquiry Officer and the recommendation of authorised Officer thereon the appellant was removed from service.
2. The background of the case against the appellant is that he held the post of Store-Keeper in Pay Scale No,6 in the Electricity Department and was posted in the Office of Executive Engineer Operation Division at Kotli. He was charge-sheeted alongwith Executive Engineer the Officer incharge of Operation Division Kotli and other members of staff for having made false entries in Stock Register with respect to the receipt of electric goods from Sultan Room Contractor and for having misappropriated Government money after preparing forged bills and making forged drawals from the United Bank Kotli out of the forged account which was being operated in that Bank in the name of Sultan Room Contractor by his immediate Officer Mr. Mohammad Nisar Kayani. A charge-sheet was supplied to him by the authorised officer (Secretary Works) and Malik Mohammad lqbal Superintending Engineer who was then posted as Inspector Electricity Department was appointed as Inquiry Officer to probe into the charges set up against the appellant. The Inquiry Officer found the charges against the appellant well-established from the evidence produced before him and on the basis of his report, the authorised Officer proposed major penalty to be imposed upon the appellant for having committed forgery and defalcations of Government money. In order to afford him reasonable opportunity to show-cause against his proposed removal from the office, the file was made over to Mr. A.R. Saleem a Secretary of the Government who at the relevant time held the Office of O.S.D. attached to the Office of Secretary Services and General Administration and it was after availing of reasonable opportunity by the appellant that on the basis of report of Mr. A.R.Saleem the impugned order was passed by the respondent Government.
3. The appellant moved a review petition before the Chief Executive of respondent Government but according to the appellant no action was taken on that petition by the Chief Executive and the appellant had to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of Service Tribunal Act, 1975.
4. In his appeal, the appellant seeks reversal of the impugned order on the following grounds:- (i)that the charge of making false entries in the Stock-Register with respect to fraudulent receipt of the electric goods is not proved against him keeping in view the report of the Executive Engineer Kotli submitted to the Inquiry Officer under No,778, dated 30-3-1983 (copy placed on appeal file).
(ii)that in his case, the Deputy Chief Engineer was a declared authorised officer and the Secretary Works had no business to act as authorised Officer but the Secretary Works has acted as authorised Officer bypassing the immediate Officers of the appellant and violating the existing orders of respondent Government. The Divisional Accountant who was the person Incharge of the Accounts of Operation Division was exonerated of the charges while the appellant was held responsible for making false entries in the Stock Register whereas he could not extract any monetary benefit out of that. According to him the inquiry report itself reflects the discriminatory treatment done to the appellant and that Secretary Works being a Member of the Vigilance Commission was incompetent to act as Authorised Officer in his case and on that account the impugned order was also not maintainable in law.
5. In the written statements filed on behalf of the respondents before this Tribunal it was stated that the appellant was found involved in defalcations alongwith his immediate Officer and the charges brought against him were duly proved before the Inquiry Officer. Since a joint inquiry was ordered to be held in case of appellant as well as his senior officer alongwith other members of staff of the Operation Division, so the Secretary of the Department acted in their case as authorised officer and the respondent Government being the ultimate and final authority resumed the powers for recording punishment. The Divisional Accountant of the Office of Xen Kotli was under the administrative control of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council and for that reason he was proceeded against separately by the Office of Accountant-General. The appellant was not entitled to any relief and his appeal was meriting dismissal.
6. We have heard the arguments as were addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel of each party. We have carefully examined the record and the evidence placed on the file of the Inquiry Officer. In his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the same grounds as are taken in the memo of appeal.
7. It is one of the grounds of appeal that the charge of making false entries with respect to the receipt of electric goods is not proved against the appellant keeping in view the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Kotli under No,778, dated 30-3-1983 a photostat copy of which is placed on the file. It is very true that the appellant held the charge of Store-Keeper and was mainly responsible for the articles available on the Stock Register. But there is sufficient evidence on the file that he made forged entries of the electric goods in Stock Register which were neither demanded to be supplied by inviting quotations nor were actually supplied to the Operation Division. The quotations received in response to the tender notice were also proved to be false and still the appellant was found to have made forged entries in the Stock Register. Although it is not a specific charge against the appellant that he introduced himself to be Sultan Room Contractor nevertheless there is sufficient evidence on the file that with the connivance of his immediate Officer Mr. Nisar Ahmad Kayani he himself has been operating the forged Account No,158 opened in the United Bank Kotli on the name of Sultan Room Contractor. Hence, the production of a photostat copy of the N.O.C. purported to have been issued by the Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Kotli bearing the date of 30th of March, 1983 is not helpful to the appellant especially in the circumstances that he has not relied upon such a document at the outset of the inquiry while submitting his reply to the charge-sheet before the Inquiry Officer. The purported N.O.C. is not a relevant piece of evidence after the submission of an inquiry report by the Inspector of Electricity Department. The inquiry report was completed and submitted to the Secretary Works on 2-4-1983, while the purported N.O.C. is shown to have been issued in favour of the appellant just three days before the submission of the inquiry report. In fact, the certificate is a sort of devise engineered by the appellant himself to get the punishment set aside in his favour and hence the appellant is not found entitled to any relief on that account. We have also gone through the reply of the charge-sheet as was submitted by the appellant before the Inquiry Officer and we find no such document was relied upon by the appellant to refute the charges set out against him.
8. Since a joint inquiry was ordered in case of appellant as well as his immediate officer, so the respondent Government had to make the order in case of the appellant also and there is no departure from any rule of procedure. Under Rule 2, sub-rule (ii) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, it is specifically provided that in case two or more Civil Servants are to be proceeded against jointly, the authority or, as the case may be, the authorised officer for the Civil Servant senior most in rank, shall be the authority or, as the case may be, the authorised Officer in respect of all such accused. So, the Secretary Works and the respondent Government have not travelled beyond their jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. Hence, the objection that the authorised Officer and the respondent Government were incompetent to make the impugned order has no base to stand upon and it is also brushed aside.
We also contribute to this view of the learned counsel for the respondent that there existed no discrimination and the impugned order was not suffering from any legal defect. The Office Accountant was belonging to Account Departments which is under the administrative control of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council. The case of Office Accountant was, therefore, correctly taken up separately and the charges against him were rightly examined by the Accounts Department and since the Accountant had no alternative to refuse the payments of bills whose vouchers and invoices were duly attested. by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer Nisar Ahmad Kayani, he was rightly absolved of the charges set up against him. There is no doubt in it that the appellant held the charge of the store but he was found to have made forged entries in the Stock Register in collusion with his immediate Officer to facilitate the defalcations in the Operation Division Kotli and, therefore, the charges brought against him are well-established and proved beyond any doubt.
9. Hence, we find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with cost.