' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners herein have impugned the order/judgment, dated 25-4-2001/28-4-2001 of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No,243(P)
C.S. Of 2000, whereby respondent, Mr. Ikramullah Khan, Ex-Divisional Accounts Officer, Accountant General's Office, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar, was reinstated in service in terms of the impugned judgment.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this petition are that in the year 1996-97 the respondent was posted as Divisional Accounts Officer (BS-16) in Public Health Engineering, Fata Division, ,Hangu. He had 22 years service at his credit. According to him, he had pointed out, in the monthly accounts of June, 1996 in form CPWA-60 to the Additional Accountant-General, Revenue, for regularization - and adjustment of the amount in question. Although, he had pointed about as above, yet, he was charge-sheeted on 1-12-1997 for "inefficiency" for allowing the excess payment. Another charge- sheet was also issued to him bearing No,AdmnII/Discipline/Case file/315/1316, dated 1-12-1999 on the same ground. According to the respondent, in his reply-he explained the factual position stating therein that the authority from 1-2-1998 to 31-5-1998 i.e, four months was exclusive of the period for which the authority had been issued vide A.G. No,WM-II/Authy:/C&W/1-T/97-98/1583-84, dated 5-9-1997 and further explained that from 1-6-1998 to 31-7-1998 the authority existed which was issued by A.-G., N.-W.F.P. Vide letter, dated 4-6-1998. It is also the case of the respondent that relevant authorities are issued by the Accountant-General and addressed to the District Accounts Officer concerned, who in turn, authenticates the same and sends to the concerned Branch of National Bank of Pakistan for making payment on the cheques issued by the Executive Engineer.
The respondent has claimed that the cheques issued by Executive Engineer, C&W were first verified by the District Accounts Officer and then sent to the bank for payment for which exercise he was not concerned. Enquiry was conducted as per rules, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are as follows:-- ' "All the functionaries mentioned in paras. 3(iii)(a) to (e) have been, collectively failed to discharge their duties efficiently and they are, therefore, held responsible for the irregularity. The Divisional Accounts Officer Mr. Ikramullah C&W Division Karak is one of the above who failed to discharge his role in light of paras. 20,21 and section B of Chapter XXII of CPWA Code. The major responsibility in this case is, however, devolved on the shoulder of District Accounts Officer Karak and his staff who failed to dishonour the unauthorized cheques, after the expiry of validity of cheques drawing authority."
(Underlining is for emphasis)
3. The authority viz. Accountant-General vide order, dated 23-2-2000 held that charges of "Inefficiency" stood established against the respondent in terms of rule 4(b)(ii) of Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 and compulsorily retired him from service w.e.f, 23-2-2000. The respondent preferred appeal against above order on 10-3-2000, but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, as per order dated 16-9-2000, thereafter, the respondent approached the Tribunal and the appeal was partially allowed and he was reinstated and the penalty imposed by the Authority was modified to the extent of withholding his promotion for three years from the date when a person junior to him is promoted within the meaning of rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in C&W Division Karak cheques were issued and drawn during period from 1-8-1998 to 31-5-1999 without obtaining necessary approval from Cheque Drawing Authority, in violation of Rule 546 of Federal Treasury Rules Vol 1. Learned Dy.A.-G.
Also argued that the respondent, being Divisional Accounts Officer, failed to detect and point out the said irregularity as per paras. 20, 21 and section of Chapter XXII of CPWA Code. He also argued that in view of the charges against the respondent, the order of his "compulsory retirement" from service was most appropriate and proper, and the modification made therein was against law.
According to learned Dy. A.-G., the authority was justified for imposing penalty of compulsory retirement as the inefficiency was in financial matters, which could not be taken lightly.
5. As against above, learned counsel for the respondent contended that main responsibility for alleged inefficiency was upon District Accounts Officer and against him no action was taken.
According to learned counsel, the 1 said officer even was not warned. He also submitted that the respondent had himself detected the alleged mistake/omission and without loss of time he pointed out the same in monthly account of June 1996 to the Additional Accountant-General for regularization and adjustment.
6. We have considered above contentions and have gone through the record.
7. It has been conceded before us by learned Dy. A.G., that except the respondent the disciplinary action was not taken against any other incumbent, although according to the findings of Enquiry Officer several functionaries had failed to discharge their duties efficiently. It is evident from the enquiry report that major responsibility was fixed upon District Accounts Officer. Learned Dy.A.-G.
Before us admitted that only two charge-sheets were issued to respondent during tenure of his service and on first charge-sheet no action was taken as charges levelled therein were not proved.
Thus, it is proved that it was that first charge of inefficiency which was proved against him but for it he was neither primarily responsible nor any action was taken against those upon whom the major responsibility was saddled. Punishment shall always be commensurate to the guilt established. It is not a case of fraud, forgery or embezzlement. On the contrary, it is .Of inefficiency and that too of lower category emanating from the/instinct, possibly of human error and definitely not prompted by any motive. Under the circumstances, the penalty imposed upon respondent was definitely excessive and was rightly modified by the Tribunal.