ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Raja Saeed Ahmad an Executive Engineer in WAPDA seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal service Tribunal dated 14-3-1995 dismissing his appeal directed against the penalty of censure imposed on him as a result of disciplinary proceedings.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner while posted as Executive Engineer, Kasur Division was served with the charge-sheet dated 21-1-1986 together with the statement of allegations containing the following charges:- During the period 10 of 1983 to 11 of 1984 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 of 1984 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 of 1984. This clearly indicates that the line losses have been increased after counting the units accumulated for reversing: Previous units received during 7 of 19841,61,84,960 Units sold during 7 of 1984 1,08,61,010 Difference 53,23,930 % age line losses 32.89% After units received during 7 of 19841,87,36,192 Units sold during 7 of 1984 1,08,61.030 Difference 78,75,162 % age line losses 42% 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 'Misconductas defined in Rule 2(5) of 'The Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D)
Rules-1978.
3. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations levelled against him. A departmental inquiry was initiated which was conducted by Col. (Retd) Muhammad Rafiq, Director Inquiries who found that the charge against the petitioner that the theft of electricity by the consumers during his tenure as XEN was on the high side was not proved nor was it established that the Authority sustained loss of lacs of rupees during his incumbency as XEN Kasur due to stealing of energy by consumers. It was further observed that the prosecution could not produce any evidence to substantiate the allegation of the petitioner's connivance with the Grid staff for supplying fictitious figures of units received in the line losses statement of July, 1984. It was, however, held by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner "did submit monthly line losses statement of July 1984 based on fictitious figures of 16184960 units received and showed line loses at 32-89% at a time when his office had already received a signed statement of units sent out from XEN SS & T-II, Lahore wherein 1,87,36,192 units sent out (received by dist:) were given. 25,51,232 units shown less received originally when added up raised the line losses to 41.11%. His plea that he did not see the statement of units sent out received from XEN SS&T-II, Lahore is not convincing to a rational mind."
The view taken by the enquiry officer was that the petitioner should have devised a system whereby the statements of line losses were prepared after comparison with the units received in his office from XEN SS&T which was not done. It was noted by the Enquiry Officer that the statement of units sent out from Grid Station had been received in the office of the petitioner five days before he despatched the return of, line losses but he did not notice that statement until pointed out by the Chairman Area Electricity Board, Lahore. Petitioner was accordingly held guilty of "forwarding a false statement of line losses showing 32.89% line losses in August 1985 "Competent Authority, therefore, by order dated 19-3-1987 placed him one step down in the time scale for a period of one year. This penalty was later modified saying that it will be "without any future effect". Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal as a result of which, he was awarded the penalty of censure.
Feeling still dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which, as stated above, was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has made a grievance that the charge of which the petitioner has been found guilty was not mentioned in the charge-sheet. The grievance does not appear to be well-based as one of the charges contained in the statement of allegations was that in the statement of line losses for the month of July, 1984, the line losses were shown as 32.89% whereas the actual losses after taking into account the units received from the Grid Station came to 42%. This allegation covers the charge of which the petition has been found guilty.
5. Learned counsel has next contended that the alleged false statement showing line losses as 32.89% was prepared and verified by the S.D.O. And not by the petitioner. That may be so but the petitioner being incharge of his office cannot avoid his ultimate responsibility. It was his duty to see that any statement/return emanating from his office reflected the correct factual position. As noted above, the Enquiry Officer has found that the statement of units sent out from the Grid Station had been received in the office of the petitioner five days before the despatch of the impugned statement of line losses. If the petitioner had only cared to have a look at the statement of units received from the Grid Station, he would have detected the incorrect figure of line losses mentioned in the statement said to have been prepared by the S.D.O. The Departmental Authority, therefore,. Rightly held the petitioner guilty of being careless in forwarding a false statement. The learned Tribunal has duly considered this aspect of the matter and rightly observed that the "petitioner should have re-verified the statement before it was forwarded". We are satisfied that the minor penalty of censure ultimately awarded by the Departmental Appellate Authority was quite justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned Tribunal was right in holding that it did not call for any interference. This petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.