' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition calls in question the judgment dated 12th May, 2003 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby appeal filed by respondent against his dismissal from service has been partially accepted in the following terms:-- "7. With this alteration, the appeal is dismissed with the direction that because of change of penalty, appellant shall be reinstated in service. The intervening period between his dismissal and reinstatement shall be treated as leave of the kind due."
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner was proceeded against departmentally in respect of the following charges:--
(i) While posted at P.R. Centre, Kassowal, you, in connivance with your Senior Officer misappropriated 161.800 M.Tons wheat and 11056 "A" class bags and caused financial loss of Rs,20,74,850 to Government exchequer.
(ii) Vide Order No,DE.M.Cell(Alloc)-786/98, dated 9-5-1998 4500 M.Tons wheat was required to be dispatched to Islamabad-II from 39/14-L, Centre. Against this allocation only 2033 M.Tons wheat was dispatched to Islamabad-II and 2265 M.Tons was dispatched to storage centre, for which Rs,2,10,728 were paid to contractor on account of transportation charges. Hence you caused a financial loss of Rs,2,10,728 to Government exchequer with the connivance of the co-accused."
3. A perusal of inquiry report compiled by the Inquiry Officer reveals that besides respondent members of the Supervisory Committee consisting of M/s. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Food Controller, Muhammad Hafeez, Assistant Food Controller and Qamar Irshad Ali, Food Grains Inspector were also held equally responsible for the pilferage of wheat. This inquiry report was followed by another inquiry report wherein the same liability was fixed for causing shortage of wheat upon Farooq Ahmad Lashari, AFC, Qamar Irshad, Fl and Muhammad Aslam, FS. It is to be noted that the Inquiry Officer also charged the members of the Supervisory Committee for causing the loss to the Government exchequer. However, 2nd report of the Inquiry Officer was accepted and the service of the respondent was terminated. After availing the departmental remedies, respondent approached to the Punjab Service Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. His appeal has been partially allowed by means of impugned judgment as such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General stated that as far as the respondent Azhar Hussain is concerned, case of corruption has been proved against him, therefore, he cannot be reinstated in service. It is to be noted that Service Tribunal had acted in exercise of powers conferred upon it under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and properly A had reduced quantum of punishment in view of the fact that six other Officers of the Department were responsible along with the respondent equally for causing damage and shortage of wheat to the Government of Punjab but no action has been taken by the Department against them.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-general had relied upon the judgment in the case of Abdul Wahid v.
General Manager and others 2004 SCM R 154. In our opinion, judgment being relied upon is distinguishable on facts and circumstances, therefore, needs no discussion in detail.
Thus, in view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that impugned judgment being just and proper admits no interference by this Court, as such petition is dismissed and leave declined.