' ABDUL RAZZAQ THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The facts of this appeal are that the appellant, Mr. Raja Saeed Ahmad, while posted as Executive Engineer, Kasur Division was served with the charge- sheet, dated 21-1-1986, alongwith statement of allegations containing the following charges: "During the period 10/83 to 11/84 when Raja Saeed Ahmed was posted as Executive Engineer, Kasur Division stealing of Electricity Energy by the consumers was on high side in the area of Kasur Division and he being Incharge of the Division miserably failed to control the same. In order to save himself from the accountability, he and his S.D.Os. With the connivance of Grid Station Staff, Kasur adopted unfair means to conceal the stealing of Electricity by indicating fictitious and bogus figures of 'units received from the Grid'. In the monthly statement of 7/84 of the line losses of Kasur Division during the period he remained posted as such, previously the line losses of Kasur Division were 32.89%, whereas after taking into account the units kept accumulating, the same became as 42% in the month of 7/84. This clearly indicates that the line losses have been increased after counting the units {{TABLE}} accumulated for reversing: Previous units received during 7/84 1,61,84,960 Units sold during 7/84 1,08,61,010 Difference 53,23,930 %age line losses 32.89% After units received during 7/84 1,87,36,192 Units sold during 7/84 = 1,08,61,030 Difference ;-- 78,75,162 %age line losses = 42.00% {{TABLE}} ' During his posting as Executive Engineer, Kasur Division the Authority sustained loss of lacs of rupees due to stealing of energy which he is held responsible.
' He is held guilty of 'misconduct' as defined in Rule 2(5) of 'The Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E&D)
Rules, 1978'."
' He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 3-3-1986 denying the allegations. An inquiry was conducted into the charges by Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Rafiq, Director Inquiries and he was found guilty of the charges. Finally by order, dated 19-3-1987, the competent Authority imposed the penalty by placing the appellant one step down in the time scale for a period of one year.
Subsequently by office order, dated 27-4-1987, earlier order, dated 19-3-1987 was modified adding "without any future effect". Feeling aggrieved the appellant preferred the departmental appeal on 13-5-1987. Finally the competent Authority by order, dated 14-12-1994 modified the penalty of censure. He then preferred this appeal on 8-1-1995 against that order.
2. Mr. Sh. Riazul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was not responsible for losses but on the contrary the statement was not prepared during his tenure, therefore, the original order as well as appellate are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that in the charge-sheet there is no allegation that he suppressed the facts and sent false statement to the authority. His contention is that appellant only forwarded the report of the S.D.O. To the higher authority showing wrong figures, therefore, he cannot be held responsible.
3. Mr. Syed Kazim Hussain Kazmi appearing on behalf of the respondent-Authority pleaded that being the incharge, the appellant was responsible for this statement and he failed to control the same and he and his S.D.O. With the connivance of Grid Station Staff, adopted unfair means to conceal the stealing of electricity by indicating fictitious and bogus figures of units received from the Grid. He has also taken a plea that conduct of the appellant in forwarding the false statement has been proved by the Inquiry Officer.
4. The appellant was admittedly posted at Kasur and he was incharge. In the disciplinary proceedings, Inquiry Officer fairly dealt with all the allegations and came to the conclusion that the charge of stealing of electricity by consumers during his tenure as XEN was not proved as prosecution could not produce any evidence to substantiate the allegation of connivance with the Grid Staff for supplying fictitious figures of untis received in the line losses statement of 7/84.
However, Inquiry Committee was of the view that the appellant did submit monthly line losses statement of July, 1984 based on fictitious figures of 16184960 units recieved and showed line losses at 32.89% a time when his office had already received a signed statement of units sent out from XEN SS&T-II, Lahore wherein 18736192 unis sent out were given. 2551232 units shown less received originally when added up raised the line losses to 41.11%. His plea that he did not sign the statement of units sent out received from XEN SS&T-II, Lahore is not convincing to a rational mind. He has been held responsible for forwarding false statement of line losses showing 2.89% line losses in August, 1985 is proved beyond doubt. The contention of Mr. Sh. Riazul Haq was that the S.D.O. Was responsible for preparing this false statement whereas the XEN was not responsible as the statement was verified by the S.D.O. We are of the view that.The appellant was careless for forwarding wrong statement to the authorities. He should have re-verified the statement before it was forwarded. Therefore, the appellate authority rightly converted his penalty of 'one step down in the time scale for a period of one year' to that of 'censure' and does not call for interference. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.