' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16-4-2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,477(L)CS/2000.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent was employed as Assistant Engineer, Pakistan Railways Headquarters at Lahore and was promoted as Executive Engineer on 6-7-1987. Departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the following charge: ' "Repair to track between Multan City-Piran Ghaib was carried out during 1993-94 and the accepted rate of the contract provided for uncompacted earthwork. As provided in the Specifications. For execution of works/1967 Railways Composite Schedule of Rates, 1990 and Special Conditions of the said contract, measurement of the fill in resultant embankment was to be converted to solid measurement by multiplying it with a .Factor of 90% i.e, 10% shrinkage allowance was to be deducted from the measurement of the resultant embankment. The same was deducted in the final bill of the said contract. You, in sheer violation of the aforesaid provisions (in the standard Specifications for Execution of Works/1967, in Railways Composite Schedule of Rates/1990 and in Special Conditions of the aforesaid contract) refunded the deducted amount of Rs,1,89,771 to the contractor. A copy each of the relevant page of standard Specification for Execution of Work/1967, Railway Composite Schedule of Rates/1990, Special Conditions of the aforesaid contract and a copy of your notings recommending the refund is enclosed.
' You have, therefore, caused a loss of Rs,1,89,771 to the Government exchequer by violating the provisions of para.807 of State Railway General Volume."
' As a result of the departmental enquiry, the charge against the respondent stood proved.
Consequently, he was dismissed from service on 25-1-2000 and an order of recovery of Rs,1,89,771 was also passed against him.
3. The respondent after exhausting departmental remedy, filed appeal before the Tribunal on 10-6- 2000. The Tribunal accepted the appeal and while maintaining the punishment of recovery of Rs,1,89,771 modified the penalty of dismissal from service to withholding of promotion for a period of 3 years after a person junior to him has been promoted.
4. Mr. Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner-Department, inter alia, argued that mere fact that it was the first instance of corruption indulged in by the respondent in his service career was no justification in law for awarding minor penalty. He further contended that the appeal filed by the respondent before the Tribunal was time-barred and no application for condonation of delay was preferred, therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed on that score alone.
5. Before adverting to the above contentions it may be pointed out that in Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan (PLD 2000 SC 869), it was held in paragraph 233 of the judgment as under: "233. 'Corruption' is generally defined as the abuse of public office for private gain. In view of the fact that scope of corruption has widened, this definition would include the abuse of all offices of trust. It has diverse meanings and far-reaching effects on society, Government and the people. Of late, the culture of corruption and bribe has embedded in our society to the extent that even routine works which should be done without any approach or influence are commonly known to be done only on some such consideration. This bribe culture has plagued the society to the extent that it has become a way of life....".
6. The observations of the Tribunal that it was first instance of corruption indulged in by the respondent and the amount involved was less than rupees two lacs are shocking indeed. The Courts have a vital role to play in eradication of corruption within the parameters of law applicable in that regard.
7. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Meanwhile, order dated 1-10-2001 suspending the operation of the impugned judgment shall hold the field.