IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1499 & 1500 OF 2019 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 10.09.2018 passed by 
the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal Nos. 243(L) & 
244(L)/2016) 
 
Divisional Superintendent Postal Services Jhang and another  
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Siddique Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 1499/2019) 
Jhandy Khan 
 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 1500/2019) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood, Addl. Att. General 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
(In both cases) 
 
 
For the Respondent (1): 
In person in both cases 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
08.07.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through these appeals by 
leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the appellants have called in question the 
vires of the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2018 passed by the 
learned Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the Service Appeals 
filed by the respondents were allowed and the penalty of dismissal 
from service was converted into withholding of one increment for two 
years.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
respondents in both the appeals namely Siddique Ahmed and Jhandy 
Khan were working as Postmen. The allegation against the 
respondents is that they have misappropriated money orders 
amounting to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.15000/- respectively by forging 
signatures of the payees and showed the same to have been paid to 
the rightful owners. During the course of investigation, the respondents 
confessed their guilt, which led to issuance of Show Cause Notices to 
them by the competent authority on account of inefficiency, misconduct 
and corruption. The respondents submitted their explanations before 
the Authorized Officer in which they admitted their guilt. Ultimately, 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1499 & 1500/2019 
-: 2 :-
after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the competent 
authority vide separate orders dated 06.11.2015 imposed major 
penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondents. The 
respondents preferred departmental appeals but the same stood 
dismissed vide orders dated 18.01.2016 & 22.01.2016. Being 
aggrieved, the respondents filed Service Appeals before the learned 
Federal Service Tribunal, which have been allowed vide impugned 
judgment and the major penalty of dismissal from service has been 
converted into withholding of one increment for two years. Hence, 
these appeals by leave of the Court.  
3. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by learned Additional 
Attorney General is that the respondents have themselves admitted 
that they have put forged signatures of the payees and kept the money 
with them; that merely the fact that subsequently, they returned back 
the misappropriated amount does not absolve them of their liability; 
that they were duty bound to either deliver the money orders to the 
payees or in case they were not available, to handover the same to the 
Post office; that the learned Service Tribunal also taken note of the fact 
that the money orders were used by the respondents for their own 
purpose 
and 
they 
were 
habitual 
in 
committing 
temporarily 
misappropriation of the money orders but despite that it allowed the 
appeals, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.  
4. 
 
The respondents, who appeared in person, admitted that 
although they had kept the amount of money orders with them but it 
was on the asking of the payees, who were out of town due to their 
official commitments.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned Law Officer as also the 
respondents in person and have perused the available record.  
6. 
 
In the present case, the fact of misappropriation of the 
money orders amount is not disputed. The respondents, who appeared 
in person, have admitted before us that instead of delivering the said 
amount to the payees, they kept the same with them for 10/15 days. 
However, they have stated that it was on the asking of the payees, 
who according to them were out of town. On our specific query, as to 
whether they were not supposed to handover the money orders back to 
the Post Office if the payees were not available at the address to which 
they admitted that they ought to have done so. According to learned 
Law Officer, the respondents did not take this stance in their written 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1499 & 1500/2019 
-: 3 :-
statements, which they had submitted before the Authorized Officer. 
Although, the said written statements are not annexed with these 
appeals but the respondents did not join this issue before us, which 
shows their implied admission. This Court in the case of Divisional 
Superintendent, Postal Services Vs. Muhammad Arif Butt (2021 SCMR 
1033) while dealing with the similar case where the respondent 
postman instead of delivering the amount to the rightful owner had 
utilized the amount of Rs.36,400/- for his personal use, has candidly 
held that “a Government servant who is found to have misappropriated 
public money, notwithstanding its amount, breaches the trust and 
confidence reposed in a Government servant who is charged with the 
responsibility of handling public money. Misappropriation of the same, 
whether temporary or permanent and irrespective of the amount 
constitutes dishonesty and misconduct. Such an employee/individual 
has no place in Government Service because he breaks the trust and 
proves himself to be unworthy of the confidence that the State reposes 
in him. It is a fundamentally important requirement of his job that 
Rules and regulations are followed and violations be dealt with 
strictly.” In paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, the learned 
Federal Service itself taken note of the fact that the respondents had 
used the money orders’ amount for their own purpose and they are in 
the habit of committing temporarily misappropriation of the same 
amount but despite that it took a lenient view, which was not 
warranted in law because misappropriation of the amount either 
meager or huge results in breach of trust which is reposed in a 
government servant and the delinquent has no right to be retained in 
service.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, these appeals are 
allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
8th of July, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram