1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This judgment will dispose of two appeals one filed by Muhammad Sachal Khoso (Appeal No, 110 of 1988) and another filed by Inayatullah Jatoi (Appeal No, 111 of 1988). Both the appellants were forest employees--the former was Forester and the latter was Forest Guard when they were charge-sheeted for the damage done to the Forest Sub-range which was their beat. As disclosed in the memo. of allegations served on the appellants simultaneously with the charge-sheet, on report of the Range Forest Officer, Sukkur, a raid party headed by Mr. Nawab Ali Mahar, Deputy Ranger was assigned the task of assessing the alleged damage. In presence of all concerned including the appellants, the said party compiled a damage list, the details of which are reflected in the said memo. of allegations. Each appellant was separately shown to be responsible for the specific amount of the loss. Mr. Rahim Bux, Range Forest Officer, Afforestation Range, Bobri who was appointed to hold a regular enquiry under Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), submitted his detailed report alongwith his recommendations. On basis of his report the appellants were given final show-cause notice and were also heard in person. Ultimately, the Conservator of Forests by his order dated 21-7-1988 dismissed the appellant Muhammad Sachal Khoso from service, besides ordering recovery of Rs,81,128 from him and the Divisional Forest Officer, Sukkur by his order dated 2-8-1988 dismissed the appellant Inayatullah Jatoi from service in addition to ordering recovery of Rs,17,704.30 from him. They preferred departmental appeals appellant Muhammad Sachal Khoso to the Chief Conservator and appellant Inayatullah Jatoi to the Conservator, Sukkur.
2. The departmental appeal filed by Muhammad Sachal Khoso was partly allowed as the Chief Conservator of Forests, vide his letter dated 28-11-1988 addressed to the Conservator Sukkur, while maintaining the penalty of the appellant's dismissal, reduced the amount to be recovered from him from Rs,81,128 to Rs,48,709.88. The departmental appeal filed by appellant, Inayatullah Jatoi was however rejected vide order of the Conservator of Forests Sukkur, dated 14-11-1988. Having exhausted departmental remedy as above, the appellants filed the aforementioned appeals before this Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard. We also went through the documents available on record. The learned counsel for the appellants, after consultation with the latter, did not press the appeals on merits. However, he prayed for reduction in penalty awarded to the appellants.
4. In view of the above statement of the appellants' learned counsel, we need not go into detailed discussion on merits of the appeals. As for his prayer for reduction in the penalty awarded to the appellants, it may be repeated that they have been awarded major penalty of dismissal from service, besides recovery of Rs,48,709.88 from appellant Muhammad Sachal Khoso and Rs,17,704.30 from Inayatullah Jatoi. It may be pertinent to refer to the enquiry report in order to ascertain how far the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, if any, have been accommodated while inflicting the impugned penalty on the appellants. The Enquiry Officer's observations borrowed from his report are as under:-- "FINDINGS: No doubt that said forest is subjected to the notorious and habitual offenders and there are many Saw Mills installed near to it, but the primary duty of protection of the forest wealth rests with the field staff and they should be vigilant in protecting the forest. The Forester and the Forest Guards are therefore responsible in not protecting the forest wealth properly and the charge of "Inefficiency and Misconduct" is proved against them. Further the Government has sustained loss of Rs,1,19,869 from the trees which have been cut unauthorisedly which should be recovered from the Forester alongwith Forest Guards proportionately as under:--
(1) Mr. Muhammad Sachal Khoso ForesterRs,30,000
(2) Mr. Muhammad Suleman Pathan Forest GuardRs,47,000
(3) Mr. Inayatullah Jatoi F.G.Rs,17,900
(4) Mr. Maqsood Ahmed Ghumro F.G.Rs, 08,300
(5) Mr. Ghulam Hyder Mahar, F.G.Rs,16,669 Rs, 1,19,869 The Forester and Forest Guards are therefore liable for "Major penalty", but looking over their long service and experience, some lenient view may be taken against the staff while deciding the case."
5. As is clear from the above findings, the enquiry officer estimated the loss sustained by the Government to be Rs,1,19,869 which he apportioned amongst five Forest employees including the two appellants he found responsible for causing the said loss. According to him the appellant Muhammad Sachal Khoso was to bear Rs,30,000 and the appellant Inayatullah Jatoi was to pay Rs,17,900. The enquiry officer further expressed his view that although the appellants were liable to suffer major penalty, yet in view of their long service leniency be shown to them. That is to say that according to his recommendations inflicting of major penalty should be avoided.
6. It is not disputed that the appellant Muhammad Sachal Khoso who joined Forest Service as Forest Guard on 18-11-1952 had put in nearly 36 years of service when the impugned order of his dismissal was passed. Similarly appellant Inayatullah Jatoi had served Forest Department for over 20 years when he was dismissed from service. Apart from their long service in the Forest Department, the loss attributed to appellants Muhammad Sachal Khoso and Inayatullah Jatoi in their individual capacity did not exceed the amounts of Rs,30,000 and Rs,17,900 respectively. In our opinion the loss was not so heavy as to have cost the appellants their service. If they were made to reimburse the said loss, then the imposition of major penalty, particularly of dismissal from service, was rather unjustified. We should also not lose sight of the fact that at this advanced stage of their age, if the appellants were deprived of their perhaps the only source of livelihood, even their families would suffer the agony of the appellants' punishment. Moreover the material placed before us did not justify the appellants' outright ouster from service which was also accompanied by stigma of dismissal. It was conceded by the Inquiry Officer in his report that the Forest Area where the loss had occurred was notorious for infesting of habitual offenders. He also took note of the fact that many saw mills were operating near the Forest concerned.
7. Though the Inquiry Officer did not consider the above reasons to be enough to exonerate the appellants from the liability, yet he seemed to be unwilling to totally overlook them. Precisely for that thinking he recommended leniency in awarding punishment to the appellants. We are in complete agreement with the views of the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly while maintaining the findings of the appellants being guilty of the charges, we would like to reduce the punishment inflicted on them. The appellant Muhammad Sachal Khoso would, instead of the impugned penalty, suffer the major penalty of reduction in rank. That is to say that he would be reverted from the post of Forester to that of Forest Guard and would work in that capacity from the date of the impugned order until 15th July, 1990. In addition to the said penalty he will also pay the loss of Rs,30,000 which will be deducted from his salary in easy instalments, each instalment not exceeding one third of his total monthly emoluments. Similarly in case of appellant-Inayatullah Jatoi, instead of impugned penalty, his promotion shall be banned for five years from the date he becomes due for the same. In addition to the said penalty he will repay the loss of Rs,17,900 recoverable in easy instalments, each instalment not exceeding one third of his total monthly emoluments. The appellants would, alternatively be free to pay the amount of loss in lump sum.
8. Accordingly the appeals are partly allowed with no order as to costs.