' SALAHUDDIN CHAUDHRI (MEMBER).--This appeal was filed on 9-5-1985 by Muhammad Arshad Jawaid, Clerk, Al-Haidry Head Post Office, Karachi. He had been earlier dismissed from service on the charges of misconduct and inefficiency having been found guilty on the allegation of fraudulently encashing Defence Savings Certificates of the face value of Rs, 7,500.
2. The origin of the dispute dates back to the year 1970. During that year the appellant was posted as Sub-Postmaster, Firdous Colony Post Office, Karachi. One Mr. Mahrukh Mirza, a School Teacher, resided in a building just opposite the said Post Office. He had been purchasing and encashing Defence Savings Certificates from this Post Office and had thus some familiarity with the staff working there. In October, 1970 while Mahrukh Mirza was posted as Headmaster in a school at Dokri (Sindh) he wanted to get encashed four Defence Savings Certificates of the total face value of Rs,7,500 which he had earlier purchased from Firdous Colony Post Office, Karachi. In this connection he approached Sub-Postmaster, Dokri Post Office, Mr. Muzharullah Khan Sun. Under the Post Office procedure Defence Savings Certificates in those days could be encashed only from the post office from where these had been purchased. In view of that the said Sub-Postmaster, Dokri advised Mahrukh Mirza to get the authority to encash these certificates transferred from Firdous Colony Post Office, Karachi, to Dokri Post Office. Accepting this advice the holder of the Certificates signed the transfer application and handed it over along with the four Defence Savings Certificates in original to the Sub-Postmaster, Dokri and obtained from him a receipt (RP-5) with the numbers of the Defence Savings Certificates noted thereon as an acknowledgement. The Sub-Postmaster, Dokri, is said to have mailed the transfer application and the Defence Saving Certificates (not carrying the signatures of the holder) under a forwarding letter to the Sub-Postmaster, Firdous Colony Post Office, Karachi, on 12-10-1970 through a registered cover (registered letter No,050) for necessary action.
2-A. In Karachi the registered envelope was delivered to the appellant by Nisar Haider, Postman, Nazimabad Post Office, on 14-10-1970. The appellant signed the addressee's clear receipt prepared by Nazimabad Post Office showing the name of the office of posting i,e, Dokri. The same day the appellant recorded the following entry in the Error Book:- "The registered letter No,050 bearing illegible name stamp of the office of issue in damaged condition containing two blank papers."
' In the same Error Book and on the same date the appellant mentioned the issuance of an express telegram to the Deputy Controller, Post Offices, West Pakistan, Karachi, regarding the receipt of damaged letter containing blank papers. This telegram was actually issued on 16-10-1970 although the despatch of this telegram had been entered in the error book two days earlier.
3, On 15-10-1970 the appellant is said to have encashed the four Defence Savings Certificates, referred to earlier, showing the payment to have been made to the holder of those certificates. The Defence Savings Certificates obviously had been encashed without production of identity slip which is issued to the holders at the time of purchase. However, the following remarks purportedly by the payee were recorded on the purchase application to the effect that "the identity slip had been lost by me."
4. Mr. Mahrukh Mirza, the real owner of the certificates, waited for about a week and then enquired from Dokri Post Office about the fate of his application for transfer of encashment. A few days later after receiving reminder from Dokri, Sub-Postmaster, Firdous Colony, Karachi, i,e, the appellant informed Dokri Post Office that the four Defence Savings Certificates had already been encashed.
On coming to know about the fraudulent encashment, Mahrukh Mirza immediately addressed complaints to the Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Karachi, as also to the Special Police Establishment, Anti-Corruption. The matter was enquired into and the conclusion reached was that it was the appellant who had committed this fraud. Thereupon formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated which resulted in the imposition of the penalty of removal from service which penalty was converted into compulsory retirement as a result of departmental appeal. The appellant, however, brought the matter to this Tribunal which accepted the appeal on the ground that the enquiry procedure adopted was not in accordance with the prescribed rules and suffered from a number of technical infirmities. Against the order of the Tribunal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan refused to allow leave to appeal.
5. In February, 1982, the Respondent-Department initiated de novo proceedings. The enquiry conducted this time was quite detailed and the appellant was afforded full opportunity to defend himself in accordance with law and the rules. Both the prosecution and defence witnesses were examined in the appellant's presence and he received full opportunity to cross-examine them. The appellant also made a detailed statement giving his own standpoint with a view to proving that he had no hand in the fraudulent encashment of the certificates and was, therefore, quite innocent.
6. On the basis of evidence brought on record the Enquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of the charge as, in his opinion, the allegation had been conclusively proved. In arriving at this finding he kept the following in view:
(i) It had been proved on the basis of the statements of Mahrukh Mirza, the holder of certificates, and of Mr. Suri, Sub-Postmaster, Dokri, that the certificates were put in the envelope and sent to Firdous Colony Post Office under registered cover. Mr. Mahrukh Mirza had also obtained receipt bearing serial number of Defence Savings Certificates on handing over the certificates at Dokri.
Thus, the scope for any one's arguing that the holder might have misplaced or lost the certificates which fell into someone's hand who later encashed them at Karachi was entirelly eliminated.
(ii) The postman, who delivered the registered letter to the appellant, obtained his signatures on the clear receipt without any remarks or reservations noted by the appellant. In fact the Postman in his statement, confirmed that the registered letter had been delivered to the appellant in good and sound condition.
(iii) It was not without significance that whereas the appellant made entries in the Error Book and also sent an express telegram to the Deputy Controller, Post Offices, on the same subject, but he made no effort W address any enquiry to the office of posting i,e, Dokri with a view to finding out what really was in the envelope when it was mailed from Dokri. The appellant's plea did not satisfy the Enquiry Officer because the clear receipt which had been signed by the appellant and handed over to the postman carried very legibly the name of Dokri. Also, given the will or a keep sense of duty, it would not have been difficult for the appellant to trace out the name of the issuing Post Office because even with the ink spot the first letter "D" and the last letter "i" could be clearly read on the envelope. If the appellant's hands had been clean he would have immediately consulted some compilation of the names of post offices and identified stations the names of which started with "D" and ended with "i". The fact that no such effort was made speaks for itself.
(iv) Under the prescribed procedure the Defence Savings Certificates could not be encashed in the absence of identity slip issued to the purchaser at the time of buying the Defence Saving Certificates. In the instant case the payment was made even without production of the said slip. In the absence of this slip, identification of the person who was said to have presented the certificates for encashment was all the more essential. That the appellant did not insist on any identification in any form was very significant.
(v) As mentioned earlier, Mr. Mahrukh Mirza who had been frequently visiting Firdous Colony Post Office during the time he was posted at Karachi and who is said to have encashed some other certificates a few weeks prior to the present incident, was fairly known to the entire staff including the appellant. The inference drawn by the Enquiry Officer was that on these facts it cannot be believed that it was not Mahrukh Mirza who was before the appellant asking for encashment of the four certificates.
(vi) The certificates encashment cases were normally handled through the clerk concerned, but in the instant case Muhammad Arshad Jawaid, the appellant, did not associate the clerk concerned and completed all the formalities by himself. Mr. Mahrukh Mirza, the holder as well as the Dokri Sub- Postmaster had confirmed in their statements that the four Defence Savings Certificates were not signed by the holder before these were mailed to Karachi. When the fraud was detected it was found that someone had put the holder's forged signatures. The signatures could be forged only by a person who had easy access to the holder's specimen signatures. Since these signatures were available on the original purchase application as well as on the transfer application received from Dokri Post Office, only someone in the post office could successfully copy or forge the appellant's signatures. As the whole encashment process was handled by the appellant himself, it could be none else but Muhammad Arshad Jawaid, the appellant.
(vii) In his statement the holder Mr. Mahrukh Mirza had categorically stated that the signatures on the certificates in token of receipt of encashment money were not his.
' Agreeing with the Enquiry Officer's report the Postmaster, Al-Haidry Head Post Office, Karachi, the authority in the appellant's case, awarded the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 12-12-1984.
7. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Department has raised the preliminary objection that the appeal filed by the appellant on 9-5-1985 is incompetent having been filed without availing of the departmental remedy as provided in section 4(1) (a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In reply, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant did submit a departmental appeal addressed to the Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Karachi, on 9-1-1985. It was further pointed out that a copy of this appeal stood annexed to the memo. Of appeal. In support of this stand the learned counsel produced two receipts Nos. 192 and 193 dated 10-1-1985 showing that some letters had been sent under registered post on the said date. The representatives of the Respondent-Department denied having received any appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents went on to add that the postal receipts being relied upon must be in respect of some other communication because, according to the appellant himself, he was not aware of his dismissal even on 16-1-1985 and had also not received a copy of the dismissal order by then. That being so, it was argued, how could the appellant have possibly submitted the departmental appeal on 9-1-1985. According to him the copy of the appeal annexed with the memo. Of appeal containing references to the order of dismissal can be nothing but a managed affair.
8. We have heard both the parties in regard to the said preliminary objection. From the record produced before us we find that on 16-1-1985 the appellant submitted in writing to the Postmaster, Al-Haidry Post Office, Karachi, that his leave having expired on 15-1-1985 he was reporting for duty and that the fitness certificate from the District Health Officer, Government of Pakistan, was also enclosed. The Postmaster, Al-Haidery replied to the appellant the same day. His reply reads as under:- "PAKISTAN POST OFFICE ' From : POSTMASTER AL-HAIDRY HEAD OFFICE KARACHI To : Mr. Muhammad Arshad Jawaid, Ex-Clerk, Al-Haidry, H.O. Karachi. No,B-3/M.A. Jawaid Dated at Karachi, 16-1-1985 ' Ref: Your application dated 16-1-1985.
' I am to inform you that you have already been dismissed from Government service with effect from 12-12-1984 vide this Office Memo. No,F2/70-71, dated 12-12-1984.
Sd/- POSTMASTER AL-HAIDRY HEAD OFFICE KARACHI."
' From the appellant's signatures obtained by the Postmaster on the office copy of the above letter, it is established that this reply was also received by the appellant the same day. On receipt of this letter, the appellant immediately and on the same day i,e, 16-1-198.5 addressed in Urdu a request to the Postmaster which when translated into English would read as under:- "To The Postmaster, Al-Haidry, Karachi.
Reference your No,B-3/M.A. Jawaid dated 16-1-1985.
' In view of my dismissal mentioned in your letter, referred to above, it is requested that I may please be supplied a copy of the order of dismissal so that I can know the details about my dismissal. Obedient Servant of the Government of Pakistan Muhammad Arshad Jawaid."
9. The documents quoted above, leave no doubt in our minds that on the 16th of January, 1985, by the appellant's own admission, he was not aware of the dismissal order nor the copy of these orders was available to him. Therefore, we are firmly of the view that he could not possibly have submitted his departmental appeal a weak earlier i,e, on 9-1-1985. We cannot help agreeing with the inference of the learned counsel for the respondents that the two postal receipts must be in respect of communications pertaining to some other matter and, in any case, appellant's departmental appeal could not have been mailed under these receipts. We also notice that the two postal receipts dated 10-1-1985 show the name/designation of the addressee as Postmaster, Al-Haidry Head Office, Karachi, whereas the departmental appeal annexed with the memo. Of appeal is addressed to the Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Karachi. Also, it is directly addressed to the Postmaster-General and not through "proper channel." If it had been intended to be sent/through proper channel, only one cover in the name of the Postmaster, Al-Haidry would have been enough. If an advance copy was sent, at least in that receipt the addressee would have been the Postmaster General and not the Postmaster, Al-Haidry. But in both the postal receipts Postmaster, Al-Haidry has been named as the addressee. Also, it is not the appellant's case that any appeal or reminder was, at any stage, sent to the appellant authority.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the conclusion we have reached is that the appellant did not submit any departmental appeal against the orders of dismissal dated 12-12-1984. Thus the requirements of law as contained in section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, have not been met. The appeal filed on 9-5-1985 and now before us is thus incompetent and is, therefore, dismissed as such.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Parties to be informed accordingly.
SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).---I agree that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of its non-maintainability as it was filed without preferring departmental appeal as required under proviso (a) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. I am also of the view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits. The charge against the appellant that he had fraudulently encashed the Defence Saving Certificates of Mr. Mahrukh Mirza while he was Sub-Postmaster, Firdous Colony Post Office, Karachi was proved against him at the regular inquiry conducted in the matter. The reasons recorded by the Inquiry Officer, outlined at paragraph 6 of the judgment written by the learned Member, are quite convincing and that the appellant was rightly held guilty of the charge. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed on merits as well as on legal ground that it was filed without preferring departmental appeal. No order is made for costs.