' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J---This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 9-8-1997 of learned Federal Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", passed in Appeal No,372-L of 1996 filed by respondent, Kh. Abdul Waheed, whereby the order dated 25-7- 1996 of the Departmental Authority, imposing penalty upon the respondent of removal from service was set aside and it was converted into "one of reduction in rank for a period of two years".
2. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are that the respondent alongwith his other colleagues Executive Engineers, while serving in Lahore Region during the years 1981 and 1983, was charge-sheeted with allegations of gross irregularities in the purchase and disposal of the stores in the Region. Subsequently, a Committee consisting of Chief Engineer, Director Surveillance and Deputy Chief Auditor was constituted to inquire into said allegations, which came to the conclusion that the respondent and other officers committed irregularities in consequence of which Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) had suffered a loss exceeding Rupees ninety lacs.
3. The report of the Committee was examined by a Review Committee comprising the Chief Manager (Administration), Chief Manager (Distribution) and Chief Manager Finance (Power). The Review Committee divided the delinquent officers into five categories for the purpose of punishment. The committee recommended that the officers included in Category "B" shall be removed from service under section 17(1-a) of WAPDA Act, and those whose names were included in Category "C", they shall be proceeded against under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
As regards those included in Categories A, D, and E, they were recommended to be served written warnings showing displeasure of the Authority. The respondent was recommended for removal from service and so was done.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Authority, the respondent filed appeal' before the Tribunal, which set aside the impugned order of removal and directed the authority to reinstate him with all the consequential benefits. Against above decision of the Tribunal the Authority filed appeal before this Court, which was accepted and the order of the Tribunal was set aside vide judgment dated 20-4-1992 and also set aside the order of removal of service of the respondent and permitted the Authority to take disciplinary action against the respondent, if so advised.
5. In above background of the case the respondent was issued the charge-sheet on 22-8-1993 containing 9 charges, which were challenged by the respondent. An enquiry was conducted by Director Inquiries, who submitted his report on 15-2-1995. Final show-cause notice was issued to the respondent for imposing upon him major penalty. An opportunity of personal hearing was also given to him. The Authority imposed penalty of reduction in rank for a period of one year as per order dated 12-6-1995. The respondent filed appeal against said order and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22-8-1995 reduced the punishment to withholding of increment for two years.
6. Thereafter, the matter came up before Revising Authority under rule 12 of the WAPDA (E&D) Rules, and show-cause notice was served upon the respondent, who submitted his reply. The Revising Authority, after giving personal hearing and observing all other legal formalities, enhanced the punishment from stoppage of increment to removal from service vide order dated 25-7-1996, and the same was challenged before the Tribunal, which set aside the impugned order and converted the punishment of removal from service in one reduction in rank for a period of two years. This appeal has been filed against last mentioned order.
7. Leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 9-4-1999, to consider whether the Tribunal after upholding the findings of the Departmental Authorities in disciplinary proceedings about guilt of the respondent, was vested with the power to interfere with and modify the nature of punishment/penalty and to reduce the same from removal of service to reduction in rank for two years.
8. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the punishment of the respondent, after having held that the charges against him were proved and substantial loss was caused to the appellants by his acts of omission or commission. Learned counsel also argued that out of 9 charges 7 were proved against the respondent and in spite of it the Tribunal reduced the punishment on the grounds, which are not sustainable in law.
9. As against above, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the judgment of the Tribunal is based upon established judicial norms and no interference is warranted. He also argued that, under the circumstances, the respondent ought to have been exonerated from all the charges.
10. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that primarily it was urged before the Tribunal that the punishment awarded to the respondent was disproportionately at higher side. Further, it was contended that other officers charged with similar irregularities were awarded minor punishment and were also retained in service while the respondent was discriminated.
11. It is significant to note that the respondent insisted before the Tribunal that the loss ascribed to him was of Rs,1,75,000 but the loss proved against him, was of Rs,1,22,927, thus, it was established rather admitted, that respondent was responsible for the loss of rupees just mentioned above.
12. Charge of corruption/misappropriation was proved against the respondent. Under such circumstances, the appropriate forum for determining if he was to be allowed to continue in service or not was the Departmental Authority, whose opinion shall be given due weight, unless other wise is shown. The Departmental Authority knows better than anybody else to decide such issue. After the charge of misappropriation/corruption is established, the normal punishment shall be removal/dismissal from service. Lenient view in such matters would destroy the fibre of discipline of service, besides encouraging others to resort such illegal activities as to enrich themselves by illegal means with impunity at the cost of welfare of the society for whose benefit they are employed. We are of the view that the respondent was not entitled to any leniency.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside and the, order of Departmental Authority removing the respondent from service is restored.