NAWAZKHAN Versus FEDERALGOVERNMENT

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.‑‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal has been made by Mir Nawaz Khan. It was alleged that while posted as Assistant National Savings Officer, National Savings Centre, Multan Road, Lahore, he fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.40,321. Usual inquiry was, therefore, held against him and as the charge against him was proved, he was removed from service. On this, after exhausting departmental remedies, he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which was also dismissed on 20th December, 1994. Now, he has made this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner on the said charge but he was acquitted. It was, therefore, urged by the learned counsel that the order of his removal from service, which was passed on the basis of departmental proceedings, also deserved to be set aside.

3. What happened in the present case was that departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings were taken out separately against the petitioner. His acquittal in the criminal case, therefore, does not justify the setting aside of the punishment awarded to him in consequence of the departmental proceedings. If departmental proceedings had been taken out on the basis of his conviction in the criminal case, and his conviction had ultimately been set aside by any forum higher than the one which had convicted him, the position would have been different. Since the departmental action against the petitioner was initiated independently of the criminal case, registered against him, his success in the criminal case would not nullify the outcome of the departmental action. In this view of the matter, removal of the petitioner, which was ordered as a result of the departmental proceedings, cannot be act aside on the score of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings.

4. Another argument raised by the learned counsel was that Officer Incharge of the said National Savings Centre, namely, Mrs. Lubna Aftab and some other members of the staff employed at the above Centre were found guilty of negligence qua the handling of the amount in question but they were not removed from service. According to the learned counsel, therefore, disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was discriminatory in nature. This plea was also raised before the learned Service Tribunal but was rejected with the following observations:‑‑

"The record shows that the penalty awarded against the Officer Incharge of the Centre Mrs. Lubna Aftab and other members of the staff was proportionate to their involvement and no discrimination has been meted out to the appellant who is proved to have embezzled various amounts from the accounts of Mst. Asghari Begum, Mst. Ameer Begum and Muhammad Sarwar. Mrs. Lubna Aftab and other members of the staff were not charged for misappropriation or embezzlement. Even the appellant has not attributed anything to these officials. They were proceeded against only for inefficiency and have been punished under the rules, keeping in view the merits of each."

5. While approving of this cogent reasoning of the learned Service Tribunal, we would like to add that the petitioner has to suffer penalty for misconduct on his part, and those working with him have to face consequences of their respective lapses. It was for the departmental authorities to deal with each official appropriately keeping in view the nature of his shortcoming; and if the fault of any of them did not warrant. his/her removal from service, the petitioner cannot justifiably urge that his removal from service should also be set aside. We, therefore, see no force in the plea of discrimination advanced by his learned counsel.

5‑A. To our minds, order of the learned Service Tribunal against the petitioner does not call for any interference. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave to the petitioner to appeal against the said order and dismiss his petition.

AA./N‑456/S Leave refused.