' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This appeal by way of special leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 24-7-1996 passed in the service appeal filed by the respondent before Federal Service Tribunal through which he challenged the punishment or reversion in rank awarded to him by the competent authority.
2. The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal bearing No,2114 of 1996 filed by the respondent against the judgment impugned in the present appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was granted to the present appellants vide order, dated 6-2-1993 which reads as under:- "It is contended by the learned Deputy Attorney-General that there was no discrimination nor any malice involved as those persons were also proceeded against and punished and as such reduction in the penalty was based on non-existing ground. Reliance was placed on Pakistan Railways through General Manager v. Ghulam Rasul A (1997 SCM R 1581).
5. The above resume of facts and submission would show that there is no basis for Muhammad Yasin petitioner to make a grievance against the impugned judgment C.P.L.A. No,2114-L of 1996 filed by him is, therefore, dismissed. As regards petition filed by the Federation (C.P.L.A. No,2114-L of 1996), the plea urged by the Deputy Attorney-General merits examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in C.P.L.A. No,2114-L of 1996."
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal in the background are that Muhammad Yaseen, respondent, while serving in the organization of National Savings, Government of Pakistan, was posted as Saving Officer in the National Savings Centre, Khanewal and Mr. Sarfraz Hussain Hamdani, Assistant Director (Inspection), was carrying the functions of inspection in the said centre. The respondent, within the knowledge of Assistant Director, handed over cash amounting to Rs,5,03,500 and a cheque valuing Rs,1,96,500 to one Shahid Latif, U.D.C. And Sarfraz Hussain, Naib Qasid for getting a draft prepared in favour of National Saving Treausry, Multan from National Bank of Pakistan, Khanewal. The abovenamed officials, with cash while proceeding towards the National Bank on foot were intercepted in the way by the unknown culprits who snatched cash from them on gun-point. The respondent on receipt of information about the incident, got a case registered at Police Station Khanewal City under section 392, P.P.C. However, the department initiated proceedings against the respondent under Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 for the charge of inefficiency and negligence. The charge-sheet contained the following allegations:-- "(i) As per clear standing instructions of the department, the Officer Incharge is personally responsible for safety of cash in his charge and its carriage to and from the. Bank or any other place. Therefore, the cash should have been moved from NSC, Khanewal to N.B.P., Khanewal either by him or by Second Officer (Cashier) viz. Manzoor Ahmad, ANSO by taking maximum possible safety/ security measures. But neither he carried the cash nor Mr. Manzoor Ahmad ANSO (Cashier) was deputed for the purpose on 13-4-1992 for preparation of Government draft. Thus, he did not comply with the instructions regarding safety and security of Government money. On account of his negligence of duties, the Government sustained a loss of Rs,5,03,500 by way of robbery.
(ii) He with gross carelessness and negligence, unauthorisedly allowed Mr. Muhammad Shahid Latif, UDC to accompany an unarmed gunman to carry huge amount of cash of Rs,5,03,500 without observing the least security measures required to be adopted during transit of cash such as he allowed the UDC/gunman to carry cash on foot without making suitable arrangement for transportation of cash, the gunman was unarmed etc., in clear violation of departmental standing instructions and repeated verbal and written instructions of this Directorate.
(iii) He did not observe cash ceiling fixed for NSC, Khanewal and retained a heavy cash and prize bonds continuously despite repeated instructions and audit observations to refrain from transgressing the limit fixed for the centre, in view of the deteriorating law and order situation, he did not pay any attention and deliberately ignored the instructions and audit observations with the result that he regularly kept the cash and prize bonds in the chest far in excess of the prescribed ceiling fixed.
(iv) He as an Incharge NSC, Khanewal has failed to coordinate with the local Police Authorities regarding provision of the police squad/guard for safe Movement of the cash, from the centre to NPB Main Branch, Khanewal. Had he taken this precaution, the attempt of robbers couldhave been averted/foiled."
4. In consequence to the regular inquiry conducted against the respondent, he was found guilty of the first three charges and competent Authority vide order, dated 2-10-1993, imposed upon him the penalty of reversion from the post of Saving Officer to Deputy National Saving Officer (B-14). Upon rejection of departmental appeal/representation filed by the respondent, he preferred an appeal, under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Before the Federal Service Tribunal which succeeded and was accepted in the following terms:- "6. Under these circumstances, we partially accept this appeal and convert the penalty of reduction to lower rank (imposed vide impugned orders dated 2-10-1993 and 29-1-1996) into stoppage of two increments for three years."
5. The grievance of the appellants/department is that the Service Tribunal in para. 4 of the judgment having reached the conclusion that respondent was negligent in discharge of his duty, was not legally justified to reduce the quantum of punishment. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has contended that the respondent being Ihcharge of the Savings Centre was personally responsible for safety of the cash in his charge and in case of any loss thereof, he being personally responsible was rightly proceeded against for the charge of inefficiency and negligence under the E&D Rules and awarded the penalty of reduction in rank. The Deputy Attorney-General contended that the Tribunal had gathered wrong impression that the officials who were in physical custody of the cash were exonerated from any action and respondent was alone held responsible for the incident whereas the fact of the matter is that said officials were also proceeded against under the E&D Rules and that the Tribunal unjustifiably substituted the penalty of reduction in rank into stoppage of two increments for three years.
6. Learned counsel representing the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that the respondent while honestly discharging his duty, deputed his subordinates to take cash to the National Bank Branch, Khanewal, which was situated at a short distance from the Savings Centre and that the handing over of cash to the abovenamed officials for preparation of bank draft was also in the knowledge of Assistant Director present in the Centre. Learned counsel contended that since none of the officials including the Assistant Director, could foresee and visualize such a situation, therefore, the Tribunal having considered the extraordinary circumstances under which loss was caused to the Government has rightly altered the penalty of reduction in rank into stoppage of two increments for three years.
7. The respondent being incharge of the centre was responsible for making necessary arrangements for safe handling of the cash and failure on his part for not taking proper care would definitely be an act of negligence. The explanation offered by the respondent that due to short distance between the Savings Centre and National Bank, the official took the cash on foot without apprehending any such mishap within the city was not found satisfactory by the Tribunal and rightly so as the movement of cash even within the city without proper arrangement, was neither safe nor permissible for the simple reason that despite all precaustions the possibility of such an incident could not be ruled out We are therefore, of the considered view that respondent was rightly held responsible for negligence, however, we noticed that Mr. Sarfraz Hussain Hamdani, Assistant Director (Inspection) while appearing before the Inquiry Officer as a witness against the respondent deposed that on the day of occurrence he was present in the ,Savings Centre in connection with the inspection work and within his knowledge the respondent deputed his subordinates to take the cash to the bank on foot in violation of the Government instructions and caused heavy financial loss to the department. It appears that Assistant Director despite having notice that cash was being taken to the bank without proper security and arrangement did not object that its movement was not safe and was in violation of the instructions. This would show that the Assistant Director being a senior officer in the Centre impliedly permitted the movement of cash without proper security arrangement. The instructions relating to the security of cash provide as under;-- ' "Cash will be transported only in official vehicles. In case of breakdown of official vehicle, alternate arrangement will be made in personal supervision and to the satisfaction of the Regional Director/Officer Incharge. The cash and prize bonds under no circumstances be carried through pubic transport or on foot."
"Responsibility for safe custody, handling and movement of cash at centres:---(1) Every officer incharge of a Centre should realize fully and clearly that he is personally responsible for safety of cash in his charge. If any loss of cash occurs (i) in the course of handling of cash at the Centre; (ii) its carriage to or from the bank or any other place; or (iii) because of short deposit of money remitted into bank he will be required to make good the loss besides rendering himself liable to be proceeded against for his negligence, inefficiency or dishonesty as the case may be. The cardinal principle laid down by the Government for observance by officer in this regard is that he should exert the same diligence in respect of Government funds as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of his own money."
8. The perusal of the above instructions would show that the cash was required to be carried in an official vehicle and in case of non-availability of official vehicle, the alternate arrangement was to be made to the satisfaction of the Regional Director/Officer Incharge. The appellants have brought nothing on the record to show that despite the availability of armed escort and the official vehicle, the respondent allowed his subordinates to take the cash to bank on foot in violation of Government instructions. The reason of non-observance of the instructions by the respondent as an Incharge of a Savings Centre probably was due to non-provision of the adequate security arrangement by the department for moment of cash from one place to another place under the instructions. Thus, the department was also at fault in sharing the negligence of respondent which caused loss to the Government. We are, therefore of the view that in the peculiar circumstances, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal was not questionable. The punishment awarded to the respondent by the Tribunal would be adequate to meet the ends of justice in the given facts which would not call for interference by this Court.
9. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any substance in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.