' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---Having been aggrieved by the Office Order dated 21-5-1995, whereby, after considering his defence reply to the show-cause notice issued on 842-1994, under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 and granting him personal hearing on 26-4-1995, he was removed from the service with immediate effect, with thirty days pay in lieu of notice period, by the competent Authority, on the grounds that he with mala fide intention, and in absolute disregard of rules, for financial discipline caused a loss to the WAPDA Authority to the tune of Rs,3,70,719.58 by way of excess payment to the petrol dealer namely M/s. Al-Sakhi Petroleum Services, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
2. The facts of the case as briefly stated in the memo of appeal are that the appellant joined WAPDA as Junior Clerk on 14-3-1963 and through the process of promotions reached to the post of Budget and Accounts Officer on 14-5-1980 and was posted at Guddu on 21-9-1988 and remained there uptil 8-7-1994.
3. It was at Hyderabad while he was serving as Budget and Accounts Officer, Regional Stores, WAPDA, that he was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, on 21-5- 1995 by that time he had 32 years of service at his credit in the said organisation.
4. Prior to his removal from the service, it is stated that the appellant was served with show-cause notice on 8-12-1994. It was replied on 23-2-1995. However, the appellant was removed from service vide order dated 21-5-1995.
5. Mr. Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant in his presence, whereas Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate alongwith Mr. Dilber Ghauri, Deputy Director (Admn.) Office of the G.M. (M & S) WAPDA House, Lahore represented the respondents.
6. The learned counsel first of all explained at bar the procedure of obtaining the supply of petrol and its payment to supplier petrol pump. The Deputy Director of the Transport Wing is the authorised officer who signs the requisition slips in triplicate. One slip is retained with the Wing whereas two are to be sent to the petrol pump; one of which is sent back by petrol pump's authority alongwith the bill to the Transport Wing, where the bills are compared and verified, and then sent to the Accounts Wing for payment. The bills as well as the slips are again checked and verified by the Accounts Clerk or Accounts Assistant. They are then submitted to the Budget and Accounts Officer. Finally, on verification the cheques are signed by the Budget and Accounts Officer, as well as the Resident Engineer. As such both the Officers share the liability and responsibility.
7. After explaining the procedure the learned counsel observed at the bar that although these officers should verify all the vouchers submitted to them, while at the time of signing all cheques for payment, nevertheless, normally they depend mostly upon the lower level officials. However, on detection of the overpayment, it was pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant, that it was his client who first detected this over payment and initiated action by writing a letter to the supplier and in response to which the dealer had given undertaking for refund of the over-payment. It was claimed that during the stay of appellant at Guddu up to July, 1994, he recovered about 17/18 lacks of rupees from the firm.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant further pleaded that in fact vouchers were verified by the Deputy Director Transport, passed by Mr. Jamil Ahmed, the Budget and Accounts Officer, and finally approved by the Resident Engineer. The persons who were directly involved in the over-payment to the firm have been either exonerated or retired. The Deputy Directors (Transport) who were directly responsible to verify and actually verified the supply items and the bills, have been exonerated.
Whereas the appellant, who was party to pass the bills on the verification of the Deputy Directors (Transport) has been removed from the service. That Foreman who used to issue the requisition slips for P.O.L. Has been ordered to be proceeded against under the WAPDA Employees (E&D) Rules, 1958. Even the Resident Engineer who signed the cheques alongwith the appellant was also retired.
The learned appellant, therefore, argued that only the appellant has been discriminated against by awarding him major punishment of removal from service. He, therefore, argued that having equal responsibility should be imposed equal punishment.
9. The learned counsel further pleaded that the show-cause notice did not contain the grounds, which should have in this regard be quoted and further argued that the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing.
10. The comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been contended that a high-powered Enquiry Committee was constituted by the WAPDA Authority to probe into the serious irregularities committed in connection with over-payment of P.O.L. Items. The appellant was held guilty by the Committee in failing to exercise proper vigilance, while making payments to the petroleum agency. The appellant with mala fide intention and in an absolute disregard of rules for financial discipline caused a loss to the WAPDA Authority and the Inquiry Committee has attributed to the appellant a loss of Rs,3,70,719.58. To meet the ends of justice and fair play, the WAPDA Authority had considered the enquiry report and after fulfilling the prescribed formalities the appellant was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of WAPDA Act.
11. As regards, the discriminatory treatment with the appellant, It has been contended in the comments, that Mr. Jamil, Budget and Accounts Officer has also been placed under suspension and a separate inquiry/special audit has been ordered by the WAPDA Authority to scrutinise all the bills passed by him.
12. The WAPDA Authority had also issued show-cause notice under section 17(1-A) of WAPDA Act, 1958 to the then Deputy Directors. They had proved their innocence with records before the Authority, they were, therefore, let off.
13. The Resident Engineer, Senior Budget and Accounts Officer, Accounts Assistant, etc. Were also proceeded against under the same law and removed/retired from service. As such appellant's other accomplices held guilty by the Inquiry Committee were proceeded against under the same law and punished according to their own share of guilt. As such, there was no discriminatory treatment with the appellant.
14. It has been refuted vehemently if the excess payment was first detected and initiated by the appellant, also that if he was not given a chance to participate in the inquiry proceedings.
15. We have heard both the parties, and reviewed the documents before us. The perusal of the record reveals that the matter first was reported to G.M. Thermal by the Chief Engineer, Guddu on 24-5-1993 indicating that he had detected gross irregularities in the expenditure on vehicles including double payments, change in the fixtures and payments of items not supplied.
16. The Member Finance was ordered to investigate the matter and submit a report on the following points:--
(i) To determine the extent of embezzlement; and
(ii) To pin point the persons involved; ' The Finance Member investigated the matter and reported on 27-6-1993 that an irregular payment approximately Rs,3 millions was involved. A statement showing the names of the persons who processed the payments were also provided. The name of the appellant appears in this list at serial No,
10. Accordingly an Inquiry Committee was appointed to properly investigate the matter and submit a report to the Authority.
17. It is revealed from the report that the tampering started from the month of October, 1991 and continued till March, 1993 with M/s. Al-Sakhi Petroleum Services, Guddu. All the officers/officials including Transport Section and R.E. Guddu responsible for verifying the P.O.L. Bills failed to discharge their duties and they never bothered to exercise proper check to confirm entries in. The stock register. This fraud could have easily been detected in case log-book and stock registers were checked before verifying the P.O.L. Bills. Accounts Branch also never cared to check tampered amount which was easily visible and they also did not check P.O.L. Bills with log books and the stock registers.
18. The P.O.L. Bills were tampered and the amount was enhanced as it came out from the statements of all the staff involved in the embezzlement. In such a type of financial irregularities, it is pointed out in the report, the responsibility for sharing the loss becomes equal. Obviously the punishment too.
19. In the report, all the officers/officials who signed the P.O.L. Bills were found negligent and were, therefore, found completely responsible for embazzelement/loss. However, the punishment so awarded to different persons was not equal. Some were exonerated, some retired and some like the appellant were removed from service. For example the inquiry found the Transport Section too involved in this embezzlement but for the reasons best known to the authorities, the Deputy Directors were let off. The Resident Engineer was equally found responsible in this fraud, but was retired. As such we cannot subscribe to the views expressed in the comments, and those of learned counsel for the respondent that there was no discrimination in awarding the punishment, and that it was given in proportion to their share in the fraud, when the Inquiry Committee itself admits that all the persons involved in the fraud were equally responsible.
20. We are of the opinion, the appellant's share in the guilt was no greater than others who were either let off or were retired. We, therefore, feel it would be against the cannons of justice, if the appellant is imposed harsher punishment than others. In the eye of natural law this would not be justified. We, therefore, to meet the ends of justice and fairplay, amend the appellant's punishment order to the compulsory retirement, with no order as to costs. Parties be informed.