IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH

MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR

CIVIL PETITION No. 342-K OF 2020

(Against the judgment dated 03.03.2020 passed
by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi
Bench) in Appeal No.85 (K) CS/2019).

The Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi & Others

…Petitioner

VERSUS
Syed Farhan
…Respondent

For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishat Warsi, DAG

Mr. Rahat Ali, Assistant Superintendent

For Respondent: Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghouri, ASC

Mr. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, AOR

Date of Hearing: 18.02.2022

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J. This Civil Petition for leave to

appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Federal
Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi Bench) on 03.03.2020 in the
Service Appeal No.85 (K) CS/2019, whereby the Service Appeal was
partially allowed by converting the major punishment of removal
from service into a minor penalty of withholding of promotion for a
period of one year and the petitioner was directed to restore the
respondent in service from the date of his removal with back
benefits.

2. The short and snappy chronicles of this Civil Petition are as

under:-

The respondent (Junior Accountant) was transferred to GPO Karachi on

20.08.2013 where he served up to 04.11.2015. During post audit of
postal pension, a misappropriation of Rs.39,63,832/- was detected. The
Postmaster General Karachi constituted a three member committee to
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -2-

probe. The past work verification committee also submitted its report and
intimated actual loss to the tune of Rs.42,40,000/-. The disciplinary
action was initiated against the respondent as well as some other
officials. The Inquiry Officer in his report found the respondent guilty.
The Authorized Officer provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the
respondent and forwarded the matter to the competent Authority.
Ultimately, the respondent was removed from service on 11.1.2019,
thereafter, he filed a departmental appeal which was also rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned
Tribunal only relied on the inculpatory statement of Muhammad
Amin Khan (main accused/clerk) but failed to consider that, due to
the negligence of the respondent, the government exchequer had
sustained severe losses. The respondent was In Charge in the
pension branch but he failed to carry out his legitimate duties as
prescribed in Section 2 (vii) & (xxi) of Appendix 27 of the Post Office
Manual Volume-IV. He further argued that there was no
justification for converting the punishment of removal from service
by the learned Tribunal into a minor penalty of withholding of
promotion for a period of one year. Being in charge, the case of the
respondent was distinguishable from that of other delinquents
when the Tribunal itself found the respondent negligent in his
duties. It was further contended that, being Junior Accountant, the
respondent was responsible to check and verify the documents
before payment but he failed to supervise the work of Muhammad
Amin Khan.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the main
accused Muhammad Amin Khan was sent for trial by the Postal
Department in FIR No.10/2015, lodged at Police Station, FIA
Karachi under Sections 409, 420, 457, 467, 468, 471, 447-A, 109
& 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 5 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court of Special Judge
Central No.I, Anti-Corruption, in Case No.11/2015, convicted
Muhammad Amin Khan who admitted his guilt before the
department during the course of inquiry and also deposited
misappropriated amount of Rs.42,40,000/- in installments.
Consequently, the main accused Muhammad Amin Khan was
sentenced to R.I. for three years & fine of Rs.50,000/- and in
default to undergo further S.I. for six months. His confession is
also evident from his self-written application to the Chief Post
Master General, Karachi GPO dated 09.06.2015. The learned counsel
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -3-

conceded that the case of respondent was of negligence hence, the

learned Service Tribunal has rightly imposed minor penalty for
withholding of promotion for a period of one year and the
respondent has accepted the judgment and did not challenge it
further in this Court.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record. In fact, the main
reason for conversion or modification of major penalty imposed by
the department upon the respondent was that the respondent was
not found involved in any misappropriation or fund, but he was
found inefficient and negligent in his duties. The relevant portion
of the judgment passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal is
reproduced as under:-

6. We have gone through the record as referred to by the respective

counsel and came to the considered opinion that the appellant has
been found inefficient in performing his duties as required under the
Rules inasmuch as had he performed his duties as prescribed under
the Rules; the alleged offence of misappropriation of government
money could have easily been anticipated. [Emphasis supplied]
Although we could not find his direct involvement in the alleged
misappropriation of amount nor any evidence was brought on record
in this regard. We have also perused the statement dated
03.06.2015 of Assistant Mr. Amin that was found inculpatory in
nature and therefore is admissible to be trusted inasmuch as Mr.
Amin while admitting commission of said offence stated that the
appellant and another official were not involved in it. In this view of
the matter, we are also of the opinion that the impugned penalty is not
proportionate to the overt acts committed by the appellant as
discussed above. [Emphasis supplied] The contention with regard to
the issuance of charge sheet beyond one month, we are of the view
that letter of Postmaster referred to by the appellant are related to
the Provincial Labour Court, therefrom, it is not applicable to the
case in hand.

7. Consequently, we partially allow the appeal by converting the

impugned order of removal from service into a minor penalty of
withholding of promotion for a period of one year. [Emphasis supplied]
The respondents are directed to restore the appellant in service from
the date of his removal with all back benefits.

6. The scrutiny of inquiry record divulges that the respondent was

performing his duties as Junior-Accountant (Pension Branch),
Karachi GPO. The Charge Sheet was issued on the allegation of
misconduct, inefficiency and misappropriation of government
money. According to the Posting Order dated 16.09.2013, the Chief
Postmaster, Karachi transferred and posted Muhammad Amin
Khan from Customer Care to the Pension Branch and directed him
to report to the Junior Accountant Pension (respondent) with
immediate effect which direction shows that the Junior Accountant
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -4-

was his In Charge in the Pension Branch Karachi GPO. The inquiry
committee in its report concluded that the purpose of posting the
Junior Accountant was to keep vigilant eye but he failed to perform
his duties of overall supervision satisfactorily. Though the main
accused, Muhammad Amin Khan, confessed his guilt during the
inquiry, with further statement that no other official was involved
but the inquiry officer found that the present respondent had
miserably failed to perform his legitimate duties being Junior
Accountant of the branch and due to his non-observance of the
prescribed procedure and Rules, the department sustained huge
losses. He was responsible for checking whether the daily cash
handling from the treasury branch to the pension branch was
being made correctly as per pension vouchers, which he failed to
do. It was further observed that the daily schedule compiled by the
main accused Muhammad Amin Khan was to be checked by the
respondent being overall In Charge of the branch, with further
responsibility to examine, reconcile and verify pension payment
vouchers but the said daily pension payment vouchers were never
examined, reconciled or verified by him. It is undoubtedly depicted
from the Removal from Service Order that the respondent failed
discharge his duty and was found guilty of contributory negligence,
whereas in the Appellate Order, it was held that the respondent
being Junior Accountant failed to perform his legitimate duties
effectively as prescribed in Appendix 27 of Post Office Manual
Volume-IV and left room for Muhammad Amin Khan to commit
fraud, therefore his appeal was rejected.

7. In general and conventional astuteness, the duty of Accounts

Officer or Junior Accounts Officer is to keep accurate chronicles of
incoming and outgoing payments for proper maintenance and
supervision of the financial data and records. As a routine feature of
his duties, he ought to monitor accounts vigilantly for ensuring
efficient and swift financial operations. He must be cautious and
sharp-eyed which would obviously lend a hand to avoid any instance
of bungling in the accounts and misappropriation of funds or public
money by any subordinate staff. He should be deeply involved with
meaningful control and supervision of accounts with its well-timed
reconciliation for tracking actual financial affairs including payment
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -5-

process, archiving of relevant documents such as vouchers,

invoices and supporting documents together with timely updating
of each transaction and bank account reconciliations on regular
basis. According to Post Office Manual, Volume IV, Appendix
No. 27, the duties of the Junior, Senior Accountant as well as the
duties of In Charge Accounts Branch have been prescribed as
follows:-

Duties Prescribed for Junior/Senior Accountant

In charge of Accounts Branch in the Post Office.

Before Independence, Time Scale Clerks/Sorters on passing a

departmental test were employed as Postal Accountants in Post
Offices. The more important duties relating to accounts were,
therefore, assigned to the Postmaster in charge personally. After
independence with the expansion in Postal Services, not only the
number of Post Offices has increased considerably but the accounts
cadre has also expanded, resulting in creation of posts of Junior and
Senior Accountants In charge of Accounts branch in large Head
Offices. Accordingly, it has been decided to assign the following
duties to Junior or Senior Accountants who are In Charge of
Accounts Branch of Head Post Offices.

2. The Junior/Senior Accountant In Charge of Accounts Branch in

the Post Office will be responsible for :-

(i) writing up of Head Office cash book (ACG-4). The balance sheet
will however, be written by the Postmaster or Deputy Postmaster as
the case may be,

(ii) Preparation and checking of pay bills and acquittance rolls of the
establishment within the accounts jurisdiction of the head office and
putting them up to the Postmaster for his signature. In a head Office
where Senior Accountant is In Charge of Accounts Branch, pay bills
and acquittance rolls will be signed by him instead of the
Postmaster;

maintenance of contingent expenditures register, preparation of

contingent bill and timely submission of monthly not-payable
contingent bill to the Head of the Circle for countersignature and
abstract contingent bill to the Director of Accounts;

maintenance and proper upkeep of register of losses, recoverable

advances and retrenchment in form ACG-60;

maintenance of register of attachment orders issued by Courts,

recovery of amount attached, remittance of amount to Court
concerned and submission of monthly statement in form Pa-32 to
the Head of the Circle;

(iii) correctness and timely submission of accounts returns relating

to accounts branch to the Director of Accounts and other concerned
offices;

(iv) preparation of consolidated Treasury and Postal receipts, and

verification thereof from the Treasury Officer/District Accounts
Officer concerned;

(v) comparison of head office cash book with schedules of receipts

and payment;

(vi) comparison of head office cash book with treasury pass book;
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -6-

(vii) comparison of the head office summary with schedules of

receipts and payments and checking thereof, respectively;

(viii) examining of acquittance rolls and preparation of memo of

undisbursed pay and allowance;

(ix) Preparation of memo of disbursement of pay and T.A. and its

timely submission to the Postmaster General for counter signature;

(x) maintaining of service books, service rolls and leave accounts and
attestation of entries therein and their safe custody;

(xi) recording of certificates of annual verification of services in

service book/rolls;

(xii) furnishing of leave admissibility certificates;

(xiii) arranging re-attestation of descriptive particulars on the first

page of service books/rolls after every five years.

(xiv) maintaining of Security/Fidelity Guarantee Bonds of the staff

within the accounts jurisdiction of the head office and their timely
renewal as prescribed in Chapter V of Post Office Manual, Volume-II;

(xv) maintenance of the register of sanctioned establishment;

(xvi) preparation of Budget Estimates, Revised Estimates and Final

Grant and their timely submission to Head of the Circle;

maintenance of Budget allotment and expenditure register under

each detailed head and submission of monthly expenditure
statement to the Head of the Circle and the Director of Accounts.

(xvii) preparation of monthly revenue statement and its timely

submission to the Head of the Circle;

(xviii) dealing with objections raised by the Director of Accounts or

Director-General, Audit;

(xix) fixation of pay of staff within the accounts jurisdiction of the

head office and verification thereof from the Director of Accounts:

(xx) maintaining of records in respect of GPF subscriptions made

and loans taken by officials in Basic Pay Scale 1 and 2;

(xxi) maintaining of Pension Payment Orders of Post Office and PTCL

and other pensioners and preparation of requisite schedules of
payment;

(xxii) checking at least once a month Savings Bank and Money

Orders Journals of any date with a view to verify their correctness;
and

(xxiii) checking register of cheques at least twice a month to ensure

that all cheques received in postal transactions are duly entered in
the register and remitted to Treasury promptly. To see that cheques
sent to Treasury were duly acknowledged and their clearance
intimated to the concerned Post Office.

(xxiv) Endorsing of Pay Orders on the vouchers bills presented for

payment before their submission to Treasury.

Note 1.Postmaster will be over-all incharge of the administration and

general supervision of the Unit including the accounts branch.
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -7-

Note 2. In addition to the above duties, the Postmaster can assign

any other duty to the Junior/Senior Accountant incharge relating to
accounts matter.

Note 3. Senior/Junior Accountant incharge of Accounts Branch may

assign the job of writing up of the head office cash book to any of his
subordinates subject to the condition that over-all respondibility will
rest with him.

[Authority: Director General Pakistan Post Office,

Circular No. 14 dated 16th May, 1983.]

8. Undoubtedly under Section 5 of the Service Tribunal Act 1973,

the powers of Tribunal are enlightened and articulated which lay
down that the Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or
modify the order appealed against and for the purpose of deciding
any appeal, be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same
powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), including the powers of a)
enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on
oath; (b) compelling the production of documents; (c) issuing
Commission for the examination of witnesses and documents. In
the case of Central Board of Revenue through Chairman/Secretary,
Revenue Division, Islamabad. Vs Shafiq Muhammad and another
(2008 SCMR 1666), this court held that the careful examination
of this provision would show that the only limitation on the power
of the Service Tribunal is to satisfy the test of reasonableness. The
law authorizes the Tribunal to make a decision on the question of
penalty awarded to a civil servant by the departmental authority
and substitute the quantum of punishment in an appropriate
manner in a suitable case in its discretion within the statutory
command and it is settled law that a judicial power exercised in
discretionary jurisdiction, is not supposed to be interfered with by
a higher judicial forum for collateral consequence in its discretion.
It was further held that that the Tribunal has to follow the
limitations and restrictions of law in its exercise of discretion in a
manner which may not offend the spirit of law. The concept of
discretion in judicial power is to advance the cause of justice and
exercise of this power in a judicious manner in the aid of justice,
and not to perpetuate injustice, whereas the executive authorities
have different considerations for exercise of such power. In the
case of Chairman Dr. A.Q. Khan, Research Laboratories and
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -8-

another Vs Malik Muhammad Hamid Ullah Khan (2010 S C MR

302), it was held by this Court that the Courts/Tribunals seized
with the matter are required to pass orders strictly within the
parameters of the Constitution and the law and the rules, and
have no jurisdiction to grant arbitrary relief in favour of any
person.

9. We have also flicked through and surveyed some other

precedents in which this Court focused on the philosophy of
quantum of sentence or penalty in the civil servants service
structure in the case of negligent, reckless and or inefficient
conduct in the line of duty deserving minor punishments. In the
case of Auditor-General of Pakistan and others. Vs Muhammad Ali
and others (2006 SCMR 60), the Deputy Attorney-General
contended that Tribunal having come to the conclusion that
respondents were guilty of the charge of inefficiency and negligence
was not justified in converting the major penalty of removal from
service and compulsory retirement into the reduction of time scale
by three stages but this Court expressed the view that the
Tribunal, having taken into consideration the nature of charge,
coupled with the fact that there was no allegation of wrongful gain
through fraud, misappropriation or embezzlement formed an
opinion that punishment of removal and compulsory retirement
from service in the circumstances of the case was harsh and
reduced the penalty. This Court held that the element of bad faith
and willfulness may bring an act of negligence within the purview
of misconduct but lack of proper care and vigilance may not always
be willful to make it a case of grave negligence inviting severe
punishment. The philosophy of punishment is based on the
concept of retribution, which may be either through the method of
deterrence or reformation. The purpose of deterrent punishment is
not only to maintain balance with the gravity of wrong done by a
person but also to make an example for others as a preventive
measure for reformation of the society, whereas the concept of
minor punishment in the law is to make an attempt to reform the
individual wrong doer. In service matters, the extreme penalty for
minor acts depriving a person from right of earning would
definitely defeat the reformatory concept of punishment in
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -9-

administration of justice. Whereas in the case of Secretary,

Ministry of Finance and another Vs Kazim Raza (2008 PSC 977),
the respondent was working as National Savings Officer cum
Inspector who conducted audit of the accounts but failed to detect
the irregularities due to which fraud and misappropriation took
place. The respondent was found negligent and major punishment
of compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon him but
it was found harsh and the Tribunal converted the same into
reduction in the rank. While upholding the judgment of learned
Tribunal, this Court, reiterated the dictum laid down in the case of
Muhammad Ali (2006 SCMR 60) and held that the purpose of
deterrent punishment is not only to maintain balance with the
gravity of wrong done by a person but also to make an example for
others as a preventive measure for reformation of the society,
whereas the concept of minor punishment in the law is to make an
attempt to reform the individual wrong doer. Similarly, in the case
of Secretary, Government of Punjab and others Vs Khalid Hussain
Hamdani and 2 others (2013 SCMR 817), this Court held that the
award of appropriate punishment under the law is primarily the
function of the concerned administrative authority and the role of
the Tribunal/Court is rather secondary. The Court ordinarily
would not substitute its own finding with that of the said authority
unless the latter's opinion is unreasonable or is based on irrelevant
or extraneous considerations or is against the law declared. It was
further held that the law provides for more than one kind of
punishments keeping in view the object of such penal provisions
and the gravity of the charge in a case. Conceptually punishment
to a delinquent public servant is premised on the concept of
retribution, deterrence or reformation. In awarding punishments,
the Competent Authority has to keep in mind the underlying object
of law and the severity of the misconduct. In the case of Muslim
Commercial Bank vs. Shamsul Aulia (2007 PSC 1866), the Labour
Appellate Tribunal concluded that the Bank was successful in
establishing the charge of willful negligence against the respondent
but instead of proposing even a minor penalty commensurate with
the nature of charge, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -10-

of Labour Court. The Court reached the considered opinion that

minor penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two
years, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and converted
the petition into appeal and modified the judgment of the Tribunal
with the directions that that respondent shall undergo the penalty
of the stoppage of two increments for two years without
accumulative effect.

10. We have looked over the aforesaid dictums laid down by this
Court and for the purpose of clarity of facts discovered that in case
of Khalid Hussain Hamdani (2013 SCMR 817), minor penalty was
recommended by the Inquiry Officer under PEEDA Act, 2006 which
was not accepted by the competent authority and imposed the
major penalty. While in the case of Muhammad Ali (2006 SCMR
60) the Inquiry Officer found the employee guilty of charge of
inefficiency and negligence under E&D Rules, 1973. Whereas in
the case of Kazim Raza (2008 PSC 1977), the employee during
audit process failed to detect the irregularities. This Court
observed if he had been vigilant and had probed the record deeply,
the fraud would have been unearthed. He was found negligent in
his duties under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special
Powers) Ordinance 2000. The learned counsel for the respondent
cited the judgment dated 28.12.2021, passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No.3-K/2021 (Federation of Pakistan & others versus
Muhammad Farhan) related to same scam in which too the inquiry
was conducted against pension clerk Muhammad Farhan but it is
quite distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the case of
the present respondent. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, this
Bench while reviewing and appraising the findings of the inquiry
report, noted that the In charge failed to check and reconcile the
cash disbursement and its entries in the daily/monthly schedules
which were prepared by Muhammad Amin Khan (main accused).

11. The expression “negligence” in fact connotes a dearth of

attentiveness and alertness or disdain for duty. The genus of
accountability and responsibility differentiates and augments an
act of gross negligence to a high intensity rather than an act of
ordinary negligence. To establish gross negligence, the act or
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -11-

omission must be of a worsened genre whereas ordinary negligence

amounts to an act of inadvertence or failure of taking on the
watchfulness and cautiousness which by and large a sensible and
mindful person would bring into play under the peculiar set of
circumstances. In unison, recklessness is a mental state or state of
mind which is adjudged both subjectively and objectively. Gross
negligence or recklessness in performing the designated or
assigned duty are both flagrant acts of negligence and tantamount
to misconduct which is of course subject to realizing and
understanding the gravity and seriousness of the allegations of
misconduct complained of. Sometimes a little or minor mistake or
negligence or inefficiency may cause serious disaster or
devastation and have severe ramifications. So, while declaring or
weighing any act of negligence or inefficacy vis-à-vis the penalty
imposed by the management, either major or minor, and before the
conversion of the sentence, the Service Tribunal is bound to revisit
the entire evidence available on record with the inquiry findings
and report and, if conversion is required in the interest of justice,
then it should be with due weightage, commensurate and
proportionate to the gravity of charges and act of
negligence/inefficiency and not on the basis of an uncontrolled or
unbridled exercise of discretionary powers of the Tribunal without
any raison d'être.

12. In some Service matters, (as elaborated in paragraph No.9 of

this judgment) this Court has deliberated and dwelled on the
philosophy of punishment which is based on the principle and
doctrine of retribution (punishment inflicted on someone as
vengeance for a wrong or criminal act) as deterrence and put side
by side to the concept of reformation or rehabilitation. In
particular, the nucleus of the dictums laid down by this Court is
that in service matters, the extreme penalty for minor acts
depriving a person from right of earning would definitely defeat the
reformatory concept of punishment in administration of justice. In
the book “Philosophy of Punishment” (U.S Department of Justice,
https://www.ojp.gov), ten essays contributed by different authors

have set forth the different rationales for justifying the institution
of punishment. According to the gist of articulation set down by
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -12-

the learned authors, two ostensibly opposed rationales,

retributivism and utilitarianism have emerged. In the retributivist
view, punishment is inherently justified in the act of breaking the
law. In the utilitarian view, punishment should produce
socially desirable consequences such as deterring
others from committing crime and reforming criminals. In line
with Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy- Sub: Legal Punishments
(Ref:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment), the theorists
have distinguished positive and negative forms of retributivism.
Positive retributivism holds that an offender’s desert provides a
reason in favour of punishment, essentially, the state should
punish those found guilty of criminal offences to the extent that
they deserve, because they deserve it. Penal desert constitutes not
just a necessity, but sufficient reason for punishment (only in
principle, however, since there are good reasons to do with the
costs, both material and moral, of punishment why we should not
even try to punish all the guilty). Negative retributivism, by
contrast, provides not a positive reason to punish, but rather a
constraint on punishment; punishment should be imposed only on
those who deserve it and only in proportion with their desert.
Because negative retributivism represents only a constraining
principle, not a positive reason to punish, it has been employed in
various mixed accounts of punishment, which endorse
punishment for consequentialist reasons but only insofar as the
punishment is no more than is deserved.

13. No doubt the philosophy of punishment is based on the

concept of retribution. The purpose of deterrent punishment is not
only to maintain balance with the gravity of wrong done by a
person but also to make an example for others as a preventive
measure for reformation of the society and the extreme penalty for
minor acts would defeat the reformatory concept of punishment in
administration of justice but at the same time we cannot lose sight
of a ground reality that, in the case in hand, the respondent was
found guilty of failing to perform his acute and crucial
responsibility of checking and supervision by and large as In
Charge, though he was not found directly guilty of
misappropriation or embezzlement of pension fund for his own
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -13-

benefit on the contrary, the main accused was convicted by the

Court and also repaid the misappropriated amount to the
department. Nevertheless, the award of punishment under the law
is predominantly the function of the competent authority and the
role of the Tribunal or Court is secondary unless it is found
unreasonable or against the law. So in all fairness and
reasonableness, if in the conscience of learned Tribunal, the
punishment of removal from service was not appropriate or was
harsh, then the conversion of punishment into a minor penalty of
withholding of promotion only for a period of one year was also not
judicious or commensurate to the quantum or volume of negligent
and inefficient acts committed by the respondent. In our view, in
such like cases where public money and its embezzlement is
involved or at stake, the responsible persons cannot be let free or
exonerated with low degree of minor penalty, so while converting
the major penalty of removal from service, compulsory retirement
or dismissal from service into minor penalty classified or
catalogued in E&D or any other Law or Rules, it was an onerous
obligation of the learned Service Tribunal to exercise its
jurisdiction of conversion of punishment with proper application of
mind which obviously connotes and necessitates that the quantum
of punishment be proportionate and complementary to the charge
of misconduct even for the minor act of negligence and inefficiency
committed by the delinquent in his duties so the punishment even
in the minor category as well should also be of such kind without
clean slate which may create at least some deterrence for the
delinquent and other employees to be more vigilant and attentive
to their duties in future rather than performing the tasks with
callous attitude which is highly prejudicial and detrimental to the
effective functioning and performance of the department. So in our
considerate view, the conversion of sentence of removal of service
by the Tribunal into penalty of withholding of promotion for a
period of one year only was neither sufficient nor justified or
levelheaded. The respondent had failed to perform and fulfill his
duties in accordance with the job description of Junior Accountant
as prescribed in Post Office Manual, Volume IV, Appendix No. 27.
The learned Tribunal itself found the respondent inefficient in
performing his duties as required under the Rules and further held
C.P.No.342-K/2020 -14-

that, had he performed his duties as prescribed under the Rules,

the alleged offence of misappropriation of government money could
have easily been anticipated but, despite these findings, the
learned Tribunal converted the major penalty into a much lesser
penalty.

14. As a result of above discussion, this Civil Petition is converted

into Civil Appeal and penalty of withholding of promotion for a
period of one year is modified and converted into penalty of
withholding of promotion for a period of three years without
accumulative effect. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Judge

Judge

Announced in open Court

On 13.5.2022 at Islamabad Judge
Khalid
Approved for reporting.