' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21-5-1993, whereby, after considering his defence reply to the show-cause notice issued to him vide letter dated 8-12-1994, under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, and granting him personal hearing on 4-5-1995, the Authority decided to remove him from the service with immediate effect, with 30 days pay in lieu of the notice period, the appellant Mr. Akhtar Hussain Chachar, preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service with WAPDA as a junior clerk on 16-4-1970 and continued as such at Guddu Power Station till 10-3-1973, when he was promoted as Accounts Clerk and liter on was further promoted in October, 1981 as an Accounts Assistant.
3. On 8-12-1994, the appellant was served with show-cause notice under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 which is reproduced below:-- xxx XXX xxx "You, while posted as Junior Clerk at TPS Guddu are accused of following irregularities, committed by you in payments to M/s. Al- Sakhi Petroleum Services, Guddu for the supply of POL to WAPDA:-- "You failed to exercise proper vigilance on the payments made to M/s. Al-Sakhi Petroleum Services, Guddu and thus through your negligent attitude and mala fide intention towards financial discipline, the Authority sustained heavy loss and your extent of responsibility has been determined for Rs,4,21,171.85 by the Enquiry Committee."
' With a view to satisfy requirements of natural justice and to ensure fair play, the Authority has decided to serve you with this notice to show cause within 10 days of receipt thereof as to why you should not be retired or removed from service under section 17(1-A) of WAPDA Act, 1958, ' You will have the right of personal hearing before the Authority, if you so desire."
' To which the appellant submitted his explanation repudiating the correctness of the charges, and pleading in no case of any criminal or negligent intent, therein and further explaining the circumstances under which over payments were made to the aforementioned petrol dealer in an inadvertent manner.
3. However, the appellant was removed from the service vide order dated 21-5-1995. The appellant submitted the "Mercy appeal for review of the order of removal from the service under section 17(1- A) of the WAPDA Act dated nil to the Chairman, WAPDA, which seems unreplied. The appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 2-10-1995.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents at the very start of hearing of the case raised objection that the appeal was barred by time as the appellant was removed from service on 21-5-1995, i,e, after a period of near four months. In the law the appellant was required to file this appeal within thirty days. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand pleaded that, he (the appellant) did summit his mercy petition to the Chairman to review his order of punishment. On not getting any response within the stipulated time prescribed under the law an appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondents on this took the stand that, such an application has no provision under the section 17(1-A). In such cases there is no provision for submitting any representation under the circumstances, he should have approached the Tribunal within the period of 30 days after the final order was received by the appellant, the condonation application, too has not been filed by the appellant; as is required under the law.
5. However, in view of the peculiar nature of the case of the appellant when others equally involved in this fraud case, with him, but same were exonerated, or less punished than him. The appellant agitates that along with his 13 other employees of WAPDA were served with similar show-cause notices based on similar allegation vide enquiry letter dated 30-4-1994 in the course of which it was found that actually field staff handed over duly sanctioned two copies of POL indent slips to the petrol dealer instead of one such POL indent slip and on the basis of the said slips the dealer double charged WAPDA for the supply of petrol and when such bills passed through the hands of the appellant in process, he submitted same in due course to Budget and Accounts Officer who ultimately sanctioned the payment after verification made by the Accounts officials working under him and the 13 other officials, who were charged with the same allegations, were ultimately exonerated or awarded mild punishment to two of them, namely Sikander Ali Abro, Resident Engineer, the approving authority and Zamir Alam, the passing authority of the bills, only with forcible retirement, with all benefits for the service rendered by him. This would obviously be a case of discrimination. The justice should not only be done, but it should seem to be done. The Enquiry Committee has observed vide F.R. 4 as reproduced below:-- "In such type of financial irregularities responsibility for showing the loss becomes equal."
' If such is the case why then the punishment should he different? To meet the requirements of justice, we have but to keep this aspect of the case into consideration. We agree that the appellant, did involve in this fraud case, there is no doubt about that and has been admitted at the bar, but the point is that is he being treated equally with all others in so far as the magnitude of punishment is considered? We come to conclusion that he is not? The Deputy Directors of the Transport Section were all found involved, but were let off. In fact it was that section, who had to be more vigilant. But they were exonerated from the allegation for the reason best known to the authorities. There has been clear discrimination in awarding the penalty to various persons involved in the fraud. We feel, that we should not be stuck with technicality of time limitation as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, as it would lead to injustice. Justice should be over and above the technicalities in our opinion.
6. We, therefore, in order to ensure justice, condone the period of time limitation, although no formal application has been put up to the Tribunal and amend the impugned order removing the appellant from service to compulsory retirement, with no order as to costs. Parties be informed.