ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): --Briefly, the facts of this appeal are that the appellant while working as Station Master, Bandhi, Sukkur Division, was served a charge-sheet dated 9-1- 1993, alongwith statement of allegations containing the following charges: "For fraudulent working inasmuch as that you Mr. Gul Hassan, SM/BHE, misappropriated the station earnings from 24-10-1992 to 31-10-1992 amounting to Rs.24,312. In the C.R. Note you falsely showed the case for this period as "Nil": This was detected during the course of motor trolly inspection of BHE Station by the undersigned on 17-12-1992."
Departmental inquiry was conducted by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Lanjar, ATO-II, Sukkur, who found the appellant guilty of the charge. The appellant was s rued a show-cause notice dated 21-3-1993, alongwith copy of inquiry report, and thereafter final show-cause notice was served, and finally he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 25-4-1993, and the misappropriated money amounting to Rs.24,312 was to be recovered from him. The appellant preferred appeal against the order of punishment on 2-5-1 3, which was rejected and he was accordingly informed vide letter dated 17-10 1993. The appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 16-11-1993.
2. The contention of the appellant is that he was not liable for action as his predecessor Raja Ghulam Sarwar had not handed over the charge when he took over and as such no misappropriation of Government money could be attributed on him.
3. The respondents have filed objections and they have raised the legal object ion that the appellant is not a civil servant and is not amenable to jurisdiction of this Tribunal. On merits, it has been stated that the appellant was given full opportunity of defence at regular inquiry and there is no illegality in the proceed
4. At the time of admission of appeal.' the Tribunal in view of the decision of this Tribunal reported in 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1164, made it clear to the learned counsel for the appellant that this appeal is incompetent for lack of jurisdiction, and at the time of regular hearing, the learned counsel was asked to satisfy us on this legal point. He argued that under the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) Notification No. E-I/90-LP/9, dated the 9th June, 1992 that Railway Servants specified in the Schedule, in Part A, have been declared as supervisory staff and as such they are civil servants and the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. On merits, he submitted that disciplinary action against the appellant is without justification as he was not responsible for the shortage /misappropriation of Government money on the ground that his predecessor had not properly handed over the charge to the appellant.
5. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqi, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the appellant was not civil servant and he cannot seek relief for want of jurisdiction. On merits, he argued that the charge against the appellant had been proved at regular inquiry and the appellant could not prove his innocence or absolve himself of the charge and he was dealt with leniently by awarding penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
6. The jurisdictional controversy is to be resolved first. There is no cavil that the appellant was working as Station Master, Bandhi when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 25-4-1993 and in view of this Tribunal decision reported in 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1164 he was not a civil servant as to invoke jurisdiction of this Tribunal, but under the Notification No. E-I/90-LP/9, dated 9th June, 1992, issued by the Ministry of Railways, certain categories of Railway servants have been declared to be Supervisors.
The notification reads as under: "In supersession of Ministry of Railways Notification No. E-1/83-NI/I, dated the 15th November, 1983, and the 16th January, 1985 and in pursuance of the special provisions below sub-clause (d) (if clause (viii) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960 (XXIII of 1969), the Federal Government is pleased to direct that the Railway servants specified in Part A of the Schedule below, who belong to the supervisory staff of workers and workmen and those specified in Part B of that Schedule who belong to the supervisory staff of civil servants, shall also be deemed to be Supervisors: SCHEDULE (PART A)
S. Nos. 1 to 22: xxxxxx (PART B)
S. Nos. 1 to, 8: xxxx xx 9.Station Masters (BPS 12 to 16)
10 to 35 xxxxxxxx Clause (viii)(d) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is also reproduced below for convenience sake:
(viii) "Employer" in relation to an establishment means any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, who or which employees workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes--
(a) to (c) xx xx xx xx xx
(d) in relation to an establishment run by or on behalf of a local authority, the officer appointed in this behalf or where no officer is, so appointed, the chief executive officer of that authority.
Special provision.--For the purpose of distinction from the category of "workers or workmen" officers and employees of a department of the 2 (Federal Government) or a Provincial Government or a local authority, who belong, to the superior, managerial, secretarial, directional, supervisory or agency staff and who have been notified for this purpose in the official Gazette shall be deemed to fall within the category of employers."
By view of the aforesaid notification dated 9th June, 1992 issued by the Federal Government, the Station Masters (BPS 12 to 16) incorporated in Part B of the Schedule to the notification, have also been declared as Supervisors and are `civil servants' and amenable to jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Therefore, in light of thin new situation in our view the appeal is competent.
7. On merits, the charge against the appellant as incorporated in the statement of allegations, was that the appellant while posted as Station Master, Bandhi misappropriated the station earnings from 24-10-1992 to 31-10-1992 amounting to Rs.24,312, and that in the C.R. Note he falsely showed the cash for this period as "Nil" which was detected during the course of motor trolly inspection of the station by the Divisional Commercial Officer, Sukkur. This charge was inquired into by the Inquiry Officer at regular inquiry. The contention of the appellant was that the shortage of Government money was committed by his predecessor Raja Ghulam Sarwar, and not by him, and that he had brought this fact to the notice of his- supervisory officer in writing, but during the inquiry the appellant failed to substantiate this version and he could not produce any documentary evidence to this effect. The Inquiry Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses in presence of the appellant held that the amount was misappropriated by the appellant himself during his posting as Station Master, Bandhi. The appellant was furnished copy of inquiry report and the competent authority after examining the entire record passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the appellant, and there is no illegality in the proceedings. The appellant has already been dealt with leniently as he has been retired from service with full pensionary benefits, otherwise on the charge of misappropriation of Government money, he could have been dismissed from service. The impugned order does not call for interference and the appeal, having no merit is accordingly dismissed with costs.