- The crux of proof of charges against the appellant is that he has “violated the instructions or precautionary measures to be adopted especially in cheque section and thus guilty of inefficiency and misconduct in governing the affairs of cheque section” — He is not held guilty of embezzling, misappropriating or conniving therein — Authorised Officer did not take into consideration the specific pleas of appellant that he did neither pass the bills nor were cheques placed before him for signatures — It was function of Auditor and Superintendent of concerned section — Accounts Officer should have been vigilant in satisfying as to whether concerned officers have performed their duties properly or not —It definitely appears to be lapse on his part — Held: It was a negligent but not mala fide conduct warranting the harshest penalty of removal from service and depriving the civil servant of the benefits which earned by putting his life long youthful blood in the job, with unblemished conduct, except the present single misdemeanour — Held further: Appeal accepted — Penalty of removal from service substituted by compulsory retirement from service. — Objection regarding irregularities committed in appointing an Inquiry Officer or issuance of order of removal from service of appellant or failure of Chairman/Prime Minister of Pakistan in personally perusing, satisfying or signing summary submitted by Auditor General, the case would entail a remand for a de novo trial which would consume one more decade — Held: It would defeat the process of justice — In the interest of justice Supreme Court itself gone through the case, perused charge sheet and reply submitted by the appellant. Raja Muhammad Irshad Khan v. AJ&K Council and 3 others 2007 SCR 419 (A,C)
error: Content is protected !!