' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This order shall dispose of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeals Nos.
2290/L and 2296-L of 2001 as both of them question the same judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 10-5-2001.
2. One Maqbool Ahmad (petitioner in C.P. No,2290-L/2001 and respondent in C.P. No,2296-L/2001) while working as a Line Superintendent Grade-I was accused of having failed to ensure safe custody of WAPDA material lying at different sites which had resulted in the theft of the said material valuing about ten lacs of rupees and he was further accused of having failed to exercise proper control over the activities of his subordinates. He was consequently charge-sheeted and as a result of the disciplinary proceedings taken against him, the Competent Authority through its order dated 31-12-1991 punished him with reduction of rank from Line Superintendent Grade-I to Line Superintendent Grade-II for a period of five years and with recovery of the alleged loss of Rs,3, 22,892.30. He submitted a departmental appeal during the pendency of which appeal a show- cause notice was issued to him by the Managing Director (Power) WAPDA to state why the above mentioned punishment awarded to him be not enhanced. It was almost five years after the imposition of the above mentioned penalty that through an order dated 7-7-1999, the said Managing Director ordered his dismissal from service.
3. The said Maqbool Ahmad then approached the Federal Service Tribunal within the period prescribed by the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973 which appeal was partly allowed whereby the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him was set aside but the penalty of reducing him in rank was maintained. The punishment of recovery of the above mentioned amount of loss was also set aside except the amount of money already paid by him.
4. Maqbool Ahmad has now reached this Court with Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,2290- L/2001 praying that the salary of the intervening period i,e, from the date of his dismissal from service to the date of his reinstatement into service be allowed to him and further that the amount of money recovered from him be also directed to be refunded to him. The Chief Executive of Faisalabad Electric Supply Company also assails the above mentioned impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal and prays that the same be set aside in toto thereby restoring the order dismissing the said Maqbool Ahmad from service.
5. In setting aside the dismissal of Maqbool Ahmad from service, the learned Federal Service Tribunal was influenced by the fact that there was no allegation that it was the said Maqbool Ahmad who was responsible for misappropriating the material in question and that the only charge against him was that he had been negligent in ensuring safe custody of the material in question and in exercising of proper control over his subordinates and that in the circumstances the punishment of dismissal from service was harsh and certainly not commensurate with the misconduct alleged against the said Maqbool. The learned Federal Service Tribunal had also noticed that the said Maqbool Ahmad had been treated discriminately inasmuch as the concerned S.D.O. And the Assistant Lineman who also faced identical accusations had been lightly let off and it was only Maqbool Ahmed who had been dismissed from service. It had also been found by the said learned Tribunal that the show cause notice proposing enhancement of punishment did not give any reason for the said enhancement nor was any such reason offered through the impugned order of dismissal.
6. The learned counsel for the Chief Executive of Faisalabad Electric Supply Company i,e, the petitioner in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,2296-L/2001 has not been able to show any illegality in the said impugned judgment. The said petition is, therefore, dismissed and .
7. Likewise, Maqbool Ahmad petitioner has also not been able to demonstrate any illegality in the impugned judgment refusing to him the refund of the amount of money already paid by him to make good the loss suffered by WAPDA and in refusing payment to him of the salary payable to him for the period starting with the date of his dismissal and ending with the date of his reinstatement. No question of law of public importance had been shown to exist. Therefore, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 2290-L/2001 is also dismissed and .