' MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).---The appellant, Zulfiqar All Khan Awan has come in appeal against the impugned order dated 7-7-1994 whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. He made a departmental appeal on 17-7-1994 which was rejected on 24-8-1994.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1991 three officers namely Khurshid Yousaf, Shahid Rafique and Zaheer Babar of the POF were involved in a case of forgery and fraud as a result of which an inquiry was conducted against them. During inquiry the three officers also took the name of the appellant in a forgery case on account of which the appellant was also suspended.
Subsequently, he was charge-sheeted. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 8-10-1991. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted against the appellant. The Inquiry Officer absolved the appellant from all the charges. The appellant was also served with a show-cause notice dated 25-10-1992 which was duly replied by him and denied all the charges. That without considering the reply of show-cause notice and findings of the Inquiry Officer the appellant was compulsory retired from service as stated earlier.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that inquiry was not conducted according to the rules. Further, the Inquiry Officer has absolved the appellant from all the charges except charge No, 3(d). Personal hearing was also not afforded to the appellant. Accordingly he prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
4. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that the appellant was involved in a corruption case for which disciplinary action was initiated against him as a result of which, after observing due process, he was compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the punishment is in order and may not be set aside.
5. We have heard both the parties and also perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the Inquiry Officer has held the appellant guilty of taking illegal gratification of Rs,5,500. We feel that there should be no leniency at least in corruption cases. Rather the department has taken a lenient view and the appellant has been compulsorily retired while the other three officers of the same department were dismissed by the respondents. We are therefore satisfied that no injustice has been done to the appellant. As such we see nothing wrong with the impugned order and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.