' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos, 431-L of 1999 and 448-L of 1999 which have been directed against the judgment, dated 2-3-1999 ofthe Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appeals of the petitioners, as questions of law and facts are common in both of them.
2. The petitioners who Fare employees of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan/respondent No, 1 were proceeded against for misconduct under the regulations of the Corporation and issued charge-sheets. In the charge-sheets, details of the charges were not given. However, in the statement of allegations, details of the charges were given. Charges against petitioners Siddique Akbar, in Civil Petition No, 431-L of 1999 inter alia, are as under:--
(a) You illegally received commission/overriding commission cheques and conveyance loan of various field workers of Burmala Sector and despite their demands you still have not refunded the cash to the concerned field workers. Details of the chaeques received by you are as follows:- {{TABLE}} Cheque No, Date. Issued in Code No, Amount 004468-87 31-12-1995 Mr. Shakoor 681356 Rs, 2,12,000 00446888 31-12-1995 Mr. Qayyum 780341 Rs, 93,400 00446889 31-12-1995 Mr. Iqbal 5815846 Rs, 99,000 00446892 31-12-1995 Mr. Iqbal 5815846 Rs, 64,400 00446894 31-12-1995 Mr. Mahmood 5881811 Rs, 25,700 00446895 31-12-1995. Mr. Hussain 5818605 Rs . 16,700 00446897 31-12-1995 Mr. Ali 5883063 Rs .22,600 00447593 31-12-1995 Mr. Shakoor 681356 Rs . 99 ,000 00447772 31-12-1995 Mr. Qayyum 5881810 Rs, 23,800 Total Rs, 7,19,600 {{TABLE}} ' Thus, you committed fraudulent acts which caused financial loss to the corporation by way of embezzlement of amounts as mentioned above.
(b) You had illegally attempted to get encashed the following-cheques issued by Vehari Zone, relating to the compensation 4.35% towards seating and allied facilities:-- {{TABLE}} Cheque No, Date Issued in favour of Code No, Amount 98245990 16-10-1995 Rashid Azim 684028 Rs, 18,324.00 98245589 16-10-1995 Abdul Majid 684029 Rs, 3,793 .00 Total Rs, 22,117.00. {{TABLE}} ' The abovementioned cheques were made in the name of the Sales Officers and both the cheques were signed and rubber stamped by you on the back side of the cheques as actual receiver instead of the Sales Officers concerned and proceeds thereof have not yet been refunded to them by you.On scrutiny of a voucher No,2009 dated 15-5-1995 showing payment of Rs,19,541 to Hakim Tanvir Iqbal, it transpired that the following medical expenses were incurred by you on forged signatures of field workers having the following codes numbers: {{TABLE}} (c)
Code 784001 Rs, 4,048.00 SR. Code 684028 Rs,2,513.00 SR.Code 684029 Rs,2,221.00 Total Rs,8,782.00 You have, thus, violated the rules by misusing the medical facilities.
(d) Cheques for an aggregate sum of Rs, 3,05,602 pertaining to other Sales Officers, not relating to Burewala Sector, were received by your clerk, namely Mr. M. Saeed and you subsequently got them encashed by forging signatures of the actual recipients. The details are as under:- Cheque No, Date Issued in favour of Amount 00443752 28-12-1995 5882876 Rs, 85,000 00445911 31-5-1995 5880664 Rs, 70,000 00445845 31-12-1995 5815404 Rs, 54,500 00439458 30-11-1995 5882293 Rs, 25,000 00438228 22-11-1995 5882293 Rs, 5,000 00445815 31-12-1995 688284 Rs,20,000 00438113 22-11-1995 5806529 Rs,30,000 97681696 22-4-1996 6888250 Rs,37,102 00440594 6882886 Rs, 6,000 {{TABLE}} ' The above amount has still not been refunded to the concerned field workers, thus, you have embezzled the corporation's funds. The cheques for an aggregate sum of Rs,1,60,000 pertaining to conveyance loan @ Rs 40,000 each in favour of field workers having the following Code Numbers were encashed by you and that the actual loans have neither received vehicles nor proceeds of conveyance loan. The details are as under: {{TABLE}} (e)
Code No, Cheque Numbers 780301 295664 780338 595030 780341 595029 68-956 296827 {{TABLE}}
(f) You had tampered Agency Channels on proposals/forms relating to various policies booked by Sardar Wajid Azeem Sm 784001 (Now Am-2604) as per list attached herewith.
(g) You were getting the P.Rs, issued without actually paying, any cash and that there occurred a shortage of cash amounting to Rs,3,77,000, in the month of December, 1995 at Burewala. Thereafter in order to 'meet the cash shortage, you then got the commission cheques prepared by having amount of Rs,1,000 Rs,2,000 Rs,3,000 debited to the concerned field workers, thus, you had pocketed the cash amounting to Rs,9,00,000 at the cost of the field workers and State life.
(h) That policy sheets containing details of Policy No, 508845791-6 were altered and the premia tampered from Rs, 13,082 to Rs,1,13,082 respectively. After receiving payment of commission in the manipulated premia, white fluid was applied on both the cases on the policy sheet to indicate the correct premium. Then cheques on account of commission against tempted manipulated premia were collected and encashed by you through fraudulent means, thus, causing loss to the Corporation."
' The charges levelled against petitioner Mian Abdul Majeed in Civil Petition No,448-L of 1999 are reproduced below:-- ( 1 ) During the tenure of your posting as Zonal Head, Vehari a huge amount of debit balance in the accounts of SR's SO's Sm of Vehari Zone had occurred aggregating to Rs, 10,024,878. This had happened because of adaptation of wrong system of payment of commission to the field workers such as--
(a) advance commissions were paid to the field workers on the basis of policy sheets instead of F.P.Rs, (even before issuance of provisional receipts);
(h) policy sheets were altered/rewritten by changing the agency channels and the amount of premium; thereby causing excess payments and duplication of payments to the field workers as well;
(e) commissions were paid against the cheques received towards premium before their realization, and upon dishonour of the said cheques, commission already paid was not recovered from the field workers; and
(d) commission/overriding commission were also paid to field workers even without checking the validity of their licences and employer of Agent's Certificates.
You intentionally and illegally acted against the rules by way of adopting, introducing, approving wrong system of payment of commission to the field workers. Thus, it resulted financial loss to the corporation and you were fully responsible and a party to the, overpayments of advance commission; thereby resulting in huge debt balances in the accounts of S.Rs, S.0' & S.Ms. Aggregating to Rs,10,024,878.
(2) You illegally extracted an amount of 1% to 2% of premium as Service Charges Hussain (Cashier), Naeem (now transferred to D.G. Khan) Dogar (Joa, Commission Department) and Azhar Abbas (the then Zonal Accountant).
(3) Provisional receipts (PRs) were issued in Vehari Zone without actually receiving the cash; and on the basis of those PRs the entries incorporated in the Policy sheets, commission cheques were prepared; and balance to be received from the field workers alongwith 1% to 2% extra for extending this illegal facility. This practice was termed as 'adjustment'. Thus you intentionally and illegally allowed such a system which was against the rules, and encouraged rebating which is an offence under the Insurance Act, 1938.
(4) You used all the illegal efforts in order to give promotion to the field workers particularly your son, Mian Rizwan Majeed, by doing favoritism, apparently for some financial motives such as:--
(a) By getting the agency channels altered through the use of white fluid in favour of Mian Rizwan Majeed; and
(b) By promoting Mian Rizwan Majeed, from Sales Officer to Sales Manager by exaggerating his actual business figure and in violation of the criteria of accelerated promotion scheme.
(5) You were actively involved in manoeuvring of business figures through changes in the agency channels directly, without proper attachments/detachments as per rules. Under accelerated promotion Scheme 34 Sales Managers in Vehari Zone were promoted as Area Managers. Out of these 18 Area Managers, including your son Mian Rizwan Majeed are liable for demotion on the basis of business figures worked out in accordance with the agency records. As a matter of fact, field workers including Mian Rizwan Majeed did not qualify for promotion as 'Sales Manager' at the relevant time.
(6) You promoted various field personnel in Vehari Zone in gross violation of the promotion criteria, in certain cases, even showing wrong business figures, and with the forged signatures of Executive Director (S&D). You also, in violation of the laid down criteria, promoted various field personnel conditionally, without brining it to the knowledge of the Principal Office. In some cases promotions were granted by you by false and misleading statement that promotion is made subject to the approval from Principal Office but no prior or post approval from the Principal Office was ever obtained.
(7) During the tenure of your posting in Vehari Zone, you tried to keep all the offiecrs and staff, of the zone under your great pressure and exerted full influence on them in order to comply with your illegal orders/instructions and to force them to deviate from the laid down procedures and to act according to your verbal orders as otherwise they were threatened thereby causing huge financial loss to the Corporation.
(8) You had drawn maximum loans and advances against the rules, details of which, are as under:--
(i) Drawn two years house rent of Rs,1,80,864 in advance without the requisite approval from pricipal office as house rent ceiling, which was payable at the time only upon transfer of an officer from one station to another. As you were already working as Sector Head, Vehari and subsequently posted as Zonal Head on the same station, such a payment was not justified.
(ii) You had also drawn various amounts under the head of advance against expenses but never adjusted those. There is an outstanding balance of Rs,49,689 against you as on 30-6-1996 under this head.
(iii) Car loan of Rs, 2,00,000 was given to Mian Rizwan Majeed on the approval of S&D Division principal office but you failed to get the car registered in the joint name of the Corporation and the loanee, particularly since the laonee was your son.
(9) You received payments on account of petrol expenses in excess of your entitlement amounting to Rs, 25,379 during your posting as Zonal Head. Vehari during 1995 without any prior or post approval of the competent Authority, and thus, caused financial loss to the corporation.
(10) You arranged the payments on account of contests and prizes? In most of the cases contests were neither announced properly nor a copy of any contest was endorsed to IA&E Department for verification.
(11) An aggregate sum of Rs, 9,89,000 was debited to different SRS. Sos. And Sms. With Rs,1,000, Rs,2,000 and Rs,3,000 without consent of the respective field workers and on questioning the cashier and the then Zonal Accountant as to where the money had gone, it was explained that such debits were raised with the consent of the Zonal Head, Mian Abdul Majeed. In other words, this sum was embezzled by the Zonal Authorities.Purchases of capital items were made at inflated prices and cheques relating to the suppliers were got encashed after making them bearer and authenticating signatures of the suppliers. A few instances are as follows:-- {{TABLE}} (12)
Description Vr. No, Dated Price (Rs,) Present price Minolta 2nd hand 60 8-6-1995 1,20,000 65,000 Photostat machine 07 4-12-1995 44,055 33,735 Carpet for Sector Office, Burewala PC Ascom 04 1-6-1995 59,500 29,500 Printer 04 1-6-1995 27,000 16,500 {{TABLE}} Following cheques were issued towards payment of a conveyance loans to different field workers of Burewala Sector by Multan Zone, and were made bearer by you. The documents concerning loans (cars) were authenticated by you and also by Mr. Siddique Akbar, the then Sector Head, Burewals (now Zonal. Head, Sahiwal). In some cases vehicle loans were granted twice against the registration book of one car. The details of which are as under;-- {{TABLE}} Code No, Cheques Nos, Dated Amount Car Regn. No, 0/S Bal 780301 88205664 13-2-1993 40,000 PK-2100 30,199 680956 88296827 2-4-1995 40,000 LOA-9389 37,589 780341 90595029 13-11-1994 40,000 M NA-4991 29,249 78338 90595030 13-11-1994 40,000 PK-2100 29,477 680676 494140 11-8-1993 40,000 LOA-9389 7,113 {{TABLE}}
(13) As a matter of fact incentive bonus was payable to the Area Managers, promoted under accelerated promotion scheme, on the business processed from the date of their promotions and not on the business processed from the date of their promotions and on the business which they have procured in the capacity of Sales Managers or in the business of those who were attached with them during the month of December 1995 through illegal attachments. It is observed that as per books of Vehari Zone, there is an overpayment aggregating to Rs,8,04,214 towards payment of incentive bonus to the Area Managers on the business which they procured prior to their promotion or by illegal attachment and detachments. This caused huge financial loss to the Corporation.
(15) Being Zonal Head, you were very well-aware of the misdeeds of your son and Area Managers namely Mian Rizwan Majeed, regarding the tampering of commission cheques etc. But instead of taking any action against him you sent two persons, namely M/s. Anwar and Naeem Atta to call the Cashier Mr. Akhtar Hussain to receive back the tampered cheques. This proves that you being the Zonal Head, Vehari Zone was involved in the malpractices of Mian Rizwan Majeed, Area Managers, Vehari."
3. An Inquiry Committee was constituted which examined only one Haroon. According to the record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents, who when questioned stated that Haroon was represented by the State Life Insurance Corporation. He also admitted that he was not the direct witness as to the facts narrated in the allegations but since was connected with the Audit report in which objections were raised by the Audit Committee about these matters, he was examined by the Inquiry Committee and no other witness was examined to prove the allegations against the petitioners though some of them were very serious as to tampering with the record and encashment of cheques and non-payment of dues to the concerned persons. No effort was made to produce evidence to prove the handwriting of the petitioners in order to prove allegations of tampering with the record or any person was examined whose amount had been allegedly misappropriated by them and also about the encashment of cheques, though in the statements, of allegations, it was also stated that one M. Saeed who is the employee of the respondent- Corporation had received aggregate sum of Rs,3,05,602 who was clerk of petitioner Siddique Akbar in C.P. 431-L of 1999 but he was also not examined by the Inquiry Committee though was available with the respondent-Corporation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on the record an affidavit allegedly sworn by. M.
Saeed in which he has allegedly deposed that the petitioners were not in any manner concerned with the cheques and did not receive the same and it was he who handled the cheques and deposited the same.
5. The main objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that it is a case of no evidence as regards receipt of cheques by the petitioners, misappropriation of the amounts as alleged and tampering with the record as no material was collected by the Inquiry Committee to hold that these allegations had been established and the authority mechanically acted upon the Inquiry Committee report and passed order of their dismissal from service.
6. We have examined the record made available to us by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the documents placed on the record and find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel and in view of the nature of the allegations and that mere statement of Haroon, one of the representatives of respondent-Corporation who did not have any knowledge of the allegations, was not sufficient proof to hold them guilty. Since it was alleged that the cheques related to commission of various Field Officers of Burewala Sector and the same allegedly having been recieved by the petitioners had not been paid to them, therefore, some of them should have been examined. The statement of M. Saeed mentioned in the statement of allegations should also have been recorded and other evidence to prove handwriting of the petitioners as regards alleged tampering with the record and further evidence should also have been recorded- as to how much amount ultimately had been misappropriated by them.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the report of the Inquiry Committee was not provided to the petitioners before their personal hearing by the Authority, the copy of which according to the documents placed on the record was asked for.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that in the relevant regulations, it was not provided that report of the Inquiry Committee should also be provided to the officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are taken. Be that as it may, it has been held by this Court while interpreting relevant rules of the Civil Servants Act in which no mention was also made for supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer that in order to meet with the principles of natural justice that the same be made available to the concerned officer to defend himself effectively.
9. Since abovenoted contentions, inter aila, of the learned counsel for the petitioners have considerable force, therefore, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we convert these petitions into appeals, the same are accepted, the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 2-3- 1999 and the order of the competent Authority dated 8-5-1997 for dismissal of the petitioners from service are set aside and the said disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending and shall be decided afresh after constitution of Inquiry Committee as the case may be and recording fresh evidence in the light of the observations made above. Needless to say that evidence shall be recorded in the presence of the petitioners who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also an opportunity to reduce evidence in defence. They shall also be provided copy of the report of the Inquiry Committee. The authority shall pass fresh order after issuing final show- cause notice and giving them opportunity of personal hearing. There will be, however, no order as to costs. /Order accordingly.