MUHAMMAD MAHMUD PIRZADA, CHAIRMAN - The appellant Abdus Sattar, Ex-Dispenser has filed appeal No. 763/1079/86 against the impugned orders dated 6.5.1986 and 24.8.1986 of the respondents.
2. The appellant Lukes Masih, Ex-Dispenser has filed appeal No. 763/1079/86 against the impugned orders dated 6.5.1986 and 24.8.1986 of the respondents.
3. The appellants have impleaded the Additional Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore and Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore and respondent, through these appeals the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondents be set aside and the appellants be reinstated into service.
4. Since these two appeals contain identical facts and common question of law, therefore, these are disposed of by this single judgment.
5. Brief facts of these appeals are that the appellants while working as Dispensers in collaboration with their colleagues dispensers forged the medicines indents from various departments against the Indent Book and dates mentioned against each in each Indent Book and on account of misconduct of pilferage of medicines. During the course of proceedings the appellants were found guilty and the appellant Lukes Masih was awarded the penalty of removal from service vide impugned order dated 6.5.1986 by the Additional Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore (Respondent No. 1) whereas the appellant Abdus Sattar was awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement from service by the Additional Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore (Respondent No. 1) vide impugned order dated 5.6.1986. The appellants feeling aggrieved filed departmental appeals to Respondent No. 2 who vide separate impugned order dated 24.2.1986 while rejecting the the penalty of removal of Lukes Masih into penalty of compulsory retirement and the penalty of Compulsory retirement of Abdus Sattar was upheld. Hence the present appeals.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of the Department with care.
7. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned orders of removal and compulsory retirement are contrary to law and without any justification. Further argued that the five dispensers including the appellants were charge sheeted and inquiries were held against all of them, but the respondent No. 1 against the findings of the Enquiry Officer exonerated the remaining co-accused other than the appellants. In this way clear cut discrimination has been made with the appellants. The appellant's counsel concluded their arguments by making a compassionate prayer for modification of penalties awarded by the respondents on the ground that the appellants were held responsible for the loss of Rs. 925/- only.
On' the other had learned District Attorney opposed the appeals and argued that the impugned orders passed by respondents were lawful and departmental proceedings held against the appellants were strictly in accordance with law but not oppose the last prayer of the appellant's counsel.
8. Having heard the parties at length we have given our anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that during the course of proceedings appellants were found guilty of the charges, levelled against them. Appellant's counsel has also failed to bring any material irregularity/illegality in the impugned orders passed by respondents and as such the appellants counsel has failed to make out any case for reversal of the impugned orders passed by respondents. As regards the prayer of appellants, counsel for modification of major penalty of removal and com puls or retirement awarded to the appellants by respondents is concerned, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellants were held responsible only for the loss of Rs. 925/-, the penalty of removal from service is modified into the penalty of withholding of increment for three years in the case of appellant Lukes Masih, and in case of appellant Abdus Sattar the penalty of Compulsory retirement is modified into the penalty of withholding of increment for three years. In addition to this the appellants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 925/- in equal share with the Government.
The period during which the appellants remained out of service shall not be entitled to any salary.
Both the appeals are allowed to that extent and both the appellants are reinstated in service. There will be no order as to costs.
Parties be informed accordingly.