The CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, POST OFFICE, MULTAN vs HAMEED-UD-DIN Dismissal from service

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

The CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, POST OFFICE, MULTAN VS HAMEED-UD-DIN Dismissal from service---Misappropriation and embezzlement---Service Tribunal converting penalty for dismissal from service into stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect---Propriety---Respondent-accused (postal clerk) was granted personal hearing---Sufficient material was available on the record which established that the respondent was granted various opportunities to defend himself---If in the opinion of the respondent his personal hearing was "meaningless", it could not be held that a hearing was not granted and the rule of audi alteram partem was violated---If the hearing was not up to the satisfaction of the respondent or he did not get the relief that he was expecting, the appellant-department could not be held to have condemned him unheard---Respondent was proceeded against under the law---Nowhere had the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings against him stated that they were biased or were being conducted improperly; he participated in the proceedings and was able to give his defence, which was left to the appellant-department to accept or not accept---Not only a regular inquiry but a preliminary inquiry was also held against the respondent---Admittedly appellant-department suffered a financial loss of Rs. 11,09,500, which could have been prevented but for the alleged loss of or inability of the respondent to account for the Postal Payment Order (PPO) Paid Vouchers---Postal Payment Orders (PPOs) were documents that were of fundamental importance and needed to be proved, or if they had been lost, independent evidence should have been produced to show that the payments were made against surrendered PPOs which had been cancelled, retained and relevant particulars thereof had been entered in the relevant records---Respondent was also required to present the vouchers against which PPO payments were made to authenticate such payments---No such evidence/material/documents were placed on record---Appellant-department gave several opportunities to the respondent to prove his innocence, but he failed to do the same---Respondent in return deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000, which, amounted to an admission on his part of the misappropriation---When the Service Tribunal, on one hand, held that the respondent was indeed responsible for the loss caused to the appellant-department, it could not assume the role of the competent authority and hold that embezzlement or misappropriation was not proved---Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set-aside and as a consequence departmental penalty of dismissal from service was restored.

The CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, POST OFFICE, MULTAN vs HAMEED-UD-DIN Dismissal from service — 2021 SCMR 1560 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR