' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This appeal by leave of the Cotirt has been directed against the judgment, dated 10-2-2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Service Appeal No, 2087 (R) of 1999.
2. The relevant facts in the background are that Abdul Rauf, appellant, having been initially appointed as typist in the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP) was assigned the duty of Cashier in the Bank and later was served with the following charge-sheet alongwith statement of allegation:-- "You, Mr. Abdul Rauf, Typist/Cashier, ADBP, Pindi Bhattian Branch are alleged to have committed the serious irregularities which amount to inefficiency, misconduct and fraud. I, designated as "Authority" in terms of ADBP Clerical and Non-Clerical Staff Service (E&D) Regulations, 1975 read with Circular No, PD/4/98, dated 24-1-1998 and Circular No, PD/12/98, dated 18-4-1998 have framed the attached statement of allegations which forms a part of this O.M. Against you.
' You are, therefore, called upon under the said regulations to render your written defence within 10 days of receipt of this O.M. To Mr. Abdul Ghafoor, Joint Director, Personnel Administration Department, ADBP, Head Office, Islamabad who has been appointed Enquiry Officer in this case stating at the same time whether you desire to be heard in person and lead evidence.
' The charges, if proved, may call for a major penalty.
(Sd)
(M. Iqbal Khan Lodhi) Joint Director (E&D) Authority"
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST Mr. ABDUL RAUF, TYPIST/CASHIER, ADBP, PINDI BHATTIAN BRANCH (P.P. No, 104087).
' Mr. Abdul Rauf, Typist/Cashier, ADBP, Pindi Bhattian Branch is alleged to have committed the following serious irregularities which amount to inefficiency, misconduct and fraud:--
(1) Disbursement in the under mentioned loan cases has been made wherein applicants are not traceable at the given addresses in Loan Application Forms, thus being Cashier he failed to confirm genuineness of the borrowers and made payment without reconciliation of the recipients with the photographs, NIC and other relevant documents available in the safe files:-- LC. Nos. 076530, 076725, 076574, 076714, 076655, 076666, 074356, 076633, 076644, 076471 and 076585.
(2) Due to his negligence, the Bank's funds have been jeopardized and impersonation is involved in the above mentioned loan cases.
' Thus this statement of allegations is against him.
(Sd.)
(AUTHORITY)"
3. In the inquiry, the appellant was found guilty of the charge of inefficiency by the Inquiry Officer and the Competent Authority in the light of findings of Inquiry Officer, awarded him major penalty of dismissal form service. The appellant upon failure of the departmental appeal preferred by him filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, and the Tribunal, by majority judgment, dismissed his service appeal, through the impugned judgment. Leave was granted in this appeal vide order dated 30-5-2001 as under:- "We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the report of Inquiry Officer. Findings so recorded by him are reproduced hereinbelow:-- ' "Findings of the Enquiry Officer."
"The record indicates that disbursement of loan in LC.
' Nos. 076530, 076725, 076574, 076714, 076655, 076666, 074356, 076633, 076644, 076471 and 076585 was made by the accused. The accused has pleaded that after proper documentation and completion of all formalities, payment orders were recorded by the Branch Manager and subsequently transaction vouchers were passed by the joint signatures for disbursement of loan amounts, he was under obligation to make the cash payments. The main responsibility of proper identification of borrowers as contained in para. 3.8 of Credit Manual lies with the MCO as well as Branch Manager. In view of above, he does not appear to be involved in fraud. Since, he failed to check/verify the documents in the respective loan cases properly, hence the charge of inefficiency stands proved against him.
' It is noteworthy that alongwith petitioner Messrs Bashir Ahmad, Javed Iqbal Virk and Rana Sadaqat Ali were also proceeded against departmentally. The departmental authorities awarded punishment of dismissal from service to all of them. They preferred appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad being Appeals No, 2086-R/1999, 2089-R/1999 and 2090-R/1999.Their appeals were partially allowed and their dismissal was converted into reduction in rank etc. It is deemed appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the punishments reduced by the Federal Service Tribunal in the appeals filed by those employees:-- ' "C.P. 1971/2000 BASHIR AHMAD"
"(i) Major penalty of reduction by three stages in his own pay scale for the period of three years.
(ii) Stoppage of his promotion for a period of three years from the date he otherwise becomes due for promotion.
(iii) He is held responsible for recovery of Bank's dues in L.C. Nos. 071878, 071889, 072806, 072758, 074116 and 074127 of Pindi Bhattian Branch if recovery is not effected by restoring to all procedural/legal measures till their maturity."
"C.P. 1972/2000 JAVED IQBAL VIRK"
(i) Reduction in rank by one step for a period of three years w,e,f, 23-6-1999"
"C.P. 1973/2000 RANA SADAQAT ALI"
(i) "Reduction to the lowest/minimum stages in time-scale of appellant at the time of his dismissal from service w,e,f, 23-6-1999."
' The Chairman Agricultural Development Bank preferred Civil Petitions Nos. 1971 to 1973 of 2000 before this Court, which were dismissed on February 22, 2001.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that against punishment of dismissal from service petitioner preferred appeal before Federal Service Tribunal but it was dismissed in view of the majority opinion of two members. He contended that as far as petitioner is concerned he was also found inefficient in performing the duty, therefore at the best he was also entitled for the same treatment which was imposed on Bashir Ahmad etc. He further stated that in view of nature of job of petitioner he cannot be held responsible for sanction of loan on fake applications, as such punishment whatsoever has been awarded by the department as maintained by the Federal Service Tribunal does not commensurate to the gravity of the charge. Contention raised by learned counsel requires consideration. As such leave to appeal is granted."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Branch Manager being sanctioning authority of loan was responsible for ascertaining the genuineness of the documents and proper identification of borrowers before sanctioning the loan and the Manager after completing the formalities, issued the payment order for disbursement of loan. The learned counsel added that the appellant having disbursed the loan in discharge of his duty under the command of Manager did not commit any irregularity or illegality to be held responsible for the wrong payment and that despite the fact that the charge of inefficiency and misconduct was not proved against the appellant on record, h? Was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service. The learned counsel, however, without further commenting upon the merits of the case submitted that he may be treated at par to Bashir Ahmed, another bank official, who was also charge-sheeted for the same allegation and was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service but the Tribunal in the service appeal filed by him converted his penalty of dismissal from service into stoppage of annual increments for three years and this judgment of the Tribunal was further upheld by this Court in a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the respondent-Bank. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant being placed in similar situation was entitled to same treatment but unfortunately, he was dealt with differently by the Tribunal and prayed for alteration of the punishment of appellant accordingly.
5. The learned counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, without contradicting the factual position narrated above tried to distinguish the case of appellant on the basis of findings of Inquiry Officer and contended that the appellant having been found guilty of the charge of inefficiency and misconduct, would not deserve any leniency in the quantum of punishment.
6. We having gone through the record with the help of learned counsel for the parties find that the appellant and his colleague Bashir Ahmed were proceeded against together for the same charges and awarded the same penalty. However, the Tribunal while dealing with the appeal of said Bashir Ahmed, having formed an opinion that in the given facts, the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him was excessive, converted the same into stoppage of increments for three years but on the other hand in the same facts and circumstances by maintaining the major penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the appellant by the Competent Authority, dismissed his appeal.
We find that the Tribunal without distinguishing the case of the appellant on fact, who was placed in the similar situation, treated him differently and learned counsel for the respondents on confrontation has also not been able to differentiate the case of appellant on merits to that of his colleague Bashir Ahmed. The Tribunal substituted the punishment of Bashir Ahmed, co-accused of appellant, in the following manner:-- "(i) Major penalty of reduction by three stages in his own pay scale for the period of three years.
(iv) Stoppage of his promotion for a period of three years from the date he otherwise becomes due for promotion.
(v) He is held responsible for recovery of Bank's dues in L.C. Nos. 071878, 071889, 072806, 072758, 074116 and 074127 of Pindi Bhattian Branch if recovery is not effected by restoring to all procedural/legal measures till their maturity."
7. We, therefore, in the light of principle of equal treatment before the law, find that appellant would also be entitled to the same relief which was given to Bashir Ahmed. We, therefore, while converting the major penalty of appellant of dismissal from service into the punishments referred to above, direct his reinstatement in service without back-benefits. This appeal with the above modification in the quantum of punishment is disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.