' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---The appellant has preferred this appeal to this Tribunal against the order dated 14-1-1995, whereby the minor penalty of recovery of the pecuniary loss of the whole amount Rs,61,560.37 was imposed upon him. Copy of the punishment order was also endorsed to the Chief Engineer, Hydro Electric Planning Organisation WAPDA, Sunny View, Lahore and General Manager, Finance (Power) WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore, to recover the amount of Rs,61,560.37 from the proportionately share of WAPDA's pension contribution in respect of appellant at the time of transfer of funds to A.-G. Punjab, as laid down under clause 7(ii)(a), Chapter-1 of WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977 (amended up to July, 1988).
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant who retired as Sub-Engineer from WAPDA on 20-6- 1993, was served with a charge-sheet on the allegation that while posted as Civil Overseer in T/L 'C'
Sub-Division, Kohat (under T&G Division, Peshawar) a contract for supply and appending of water borne gravel in the Switch Yard at 132 K.V. Grid Station, Kohat, was awarded to M/s. Javaid Hussain.
The appellant was alleged to have made wrong entries at the first instance when recording entries of the measurement at the time of preparing second and final bill of the Contractor. After realising the mistake, he recorded the correct entry at pages 110 and 111 of M.B. No,SG-35 which was cancelled because the appellant was supposed to record the second bill in M.B. No,1067 wherein first running bill was recorded. But the appellant is alleged to have failed to record the second bill and also did not inform the office that he committed the mistake. Thus, the lapses on the part of the appellant are alleged to have constrained the Contractor to seek redressal through the Court of law, as a result of which the Contractor was paid his correct claim through Court order.
3. On the basis of the above allegation the appellant is alleged to have knowingly and deliberately compelled the Contractor for filing a suit in the Court of law which resulting in the loss to the authority of amounted to Rs,49,197.25 on account of payment of interest on the claim of Contractor for the period from 28-6-1976 to 24-2-1980.
4. The second charge against the appellant was that he failed to deduct 1784 Cft gravel size 3"x4" @ Rs,345 % Cft and gravel size 1"x1-1/2 @ Rs,348 equal to Rs,348 % Cft on account of Road Gantries, Transformer Trenches and other small foundations as per sanctioned estimate of the work. The break-up of which came to Rs,12,363.12. Thus, the total loss alleged to have sustained by the authority due to careless and negligence on the part of the appellant comes to Rs,61,560.37. The appellant denied the allegation in his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet and requested to be exonerated from the alleged charges. As a result of inquiry held against the appellant a show- cause notice was issued to him on 14-6-1994 i,e, one year after the appellant's retirement on 20-6- 1993.
5. In reply to the show-cause notice the appellant specifically submitted that on account of non- finalisation of the inquiry by the date of his retirement i,e, 20-6-1993, no further proceedings could have been taken against him. The Authorised Officer imposed upon him the penalty of recovery of Rs,61,560.37 by order dated 14-1-1995. After exhausting departmental remedy he has come in appeal to this Tribunal.
6. The main ground taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no disciplinary proceedings were legally permissible after appellant's retirement and the impugned order regarding recovery of the amount could not be passed after he was no longer in the respondent's service. On the other hand the respondents' case is that since disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him during the course of service the impugned order though passed after his retirement, was legally sustainable.
7. We have heard the learned counsel at the length and have gone through the record. We find from the Rule 4(i)(a) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 that a minor penalty for recovery can be imposed only from the pay of WAPDA Employees. Since he is no longer in receipt of such pay after his retirement, no recovery could legally be effected from him. Even otherwise, according to Rule 7, Chapter I of the Pakistan WAPDA Pension Rules, all enquiries are to be initiated/finalized within one year of the retirement, of WAPDA Employees, failing which full pension/gratuity has to be sanctioned in favour of the retired WAPDA Employees. In this case the appellant was retired on medical ground with effect from 20-6-1993 on the prescribed period of one year expired on 20-6-1994 but the impugned penalty was ordered on 14-1-1995 which is clearly in violation of the WAPDA's own rule.
8. We also find that the WAPDA have adopted the Fundamental Rules F.R. 54-A says that if a Government servant who has been suspended pending inquiry into his conduct, retires from service before the completion of inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings against him shall abate and such Government servant shall retire with full pensionary benefits and the period of suspension shall be treated as spent on duty. There is also a recent judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Syed Anwar Khan v. Chief Engineer/Chairman, WAPDA reported as 1992 PLC (C.S.) 1211 which is more or less a similar type of case wherein the identical impugned order of recovery was set aside and the appeal was accepted. The facts of the instant case are just like the reported case.
9. For the above reasons we hold that the impugned order dated 14-1-1995 for recovery of Rs,61,560.37 is not sustainable. We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent-department to pay full pensionery benefits to the appellant.