1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The above order clearly shows that the appellants' services were terminated on two grounds: first, they had produced forged documents of qualifications: second, they did not possess the qualifications required for the post of Sub-Engineer. The point for consideration is whether above two allegations were proved before the impugned orders of termination of the appellants' services were issued. It is not disputed that a disciplinary action was initiated against the appellants in accordance with the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the said rules). As required by sub-rule (3) of the rule 5 of the said rules the appellants were served with show cause notice on different dates: Zulfiqar Ali on 16-8-1988, Ghulam Anwar on 30-7-1988 and Abdul Qayoom on 30-8-1988. The notice served on them was however couched in the same language which reads as under: "In exercise of the powers vested in me under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 the undersigned being authorised Officer, do hereby issue show cause to you Mr s/o................ Sub-Engineer, Field Team N'Feroze on the following grounds: (i) That on verification of the original certificates furnished by you on 17-7 -1988 before the Selection Committee Command Water Management Project, it reveals that your qualification does not suit to the post of Sub -Engineer. (ii) That you have deliberately submitted the forged copies of the certificates in your application while getting the appointment order. (iii) That it is clear cut fraud, forgery and tampering of the record done deliberately by you to get the employment. (iv) That by virtue of this you are liable for major penalty specified under rule 4(1)(b) of the said Rules. Please show cause within fifteen days of the receipt of this notice as to why penalty should not be imposed upon you which may entitle you liable for termination from Government Service." It appears from the above notice that for the purpose of getting appointment order for the Sub-Engineer's post the appellants had allegedly produced forged documents of their qualifications and that the forgery came to light on verification of the original documents of qualifications by the Selection Committee. This charge has been emphatically refuted by all the three appellants in their reply to the above show-cause notice. The relevant part of appellant Zulfiqar Ali's reply is as under: "That my qualification as shown in the original Testimonial is Auto- Diesel, and my appointment was made on the basis of my said qualification. It was the look out of the department to determine the suitability of my qualification before issuing appointment order and no appointment order should have been issued, if actually my said qualification did not stand commensurate with the post of Sub -Engineer." Against the above reply the learned, Assistant Advocate-General relied upon the photo copies of appellant Zulfiqar Ali's application and certificate of qualification that he had allegedly produced at the time of his appointment. In both the documents he is shown to have done diploma in Mechanical Engineering. So far the reply to the show-cause notice submitted by appellant Ghulam Anwar is concerned it is substantially the same as given by appellant Zulfqar Ali hereinabove excepting that he claims that "his qualification as shown in the original Testimonial is Mechanical with specialisation in Tool Design and Tool Making". However, in refutation of his claim the learned Assistant Advocate General invited our reference to appellant's application and certificate of qualifications he had produced at the time of his appointment which clearly indicated that he was Diploma in `Mechanical'. As regards the reply to the show-cause notice given by appellant Abdul Qayoom, it is found that it is also materially the same as given by other two appellants excepting of course in respect of qualifications for which his version is; "That my qualification as shown in the original Testimonial is Auto-Farm". In his case also the learned Assistant Advocate-General referred us to his application and certificate of qualification he had produced at the time of his appointment. Both these documents clearly indicated that he had done diploma in `Mechanical Engineering'. It would appear from the above narration that the documents allegedly produced by the appellants at the time of their appointment did not tally with the original documents in respect of their qualifications. As such we have no hesitation to conclude that the documents allegedly produced at the time of appellants' appointment were not genuine but were rather tampered with. This is confirmed even by a bare look at the said documents. We should now proceed to identify the hand which had committed the tampering. In ordinary course it is a matter of presumption that the appellant who was in need of the job would make alterations in the documents in question so as to look that he possessed the qualification prescribed for the job. It was rather unbelievable that the Government Department who provided the job to the appellant would have committed the tampering. However, it was argued on behalf of at least two of the appellants namely Ghulam Anwar and Abdul Qayoom that since their appointments were made on the instructions of the then Agriculture Minister, the Departmental Authorities were obviously not happy and therefore the tampering of the documents in question must have been done by the said authorities. The learned counsel also expressed the view that by resorting to tampering of the documents, the departmental authorities could achieve their objective of ousting the unwanted hands from service. Despite our insistence, neither party could produce the relevant rules prescribing the qualifications for the post of Sub-Engineer. Nonetheless our attention was drawn to two advertisements; one appearing in Sindhi Newspaper fixing 10th June, 1985 as the last date for receipt of applications for Sub -Engineers' posts, and the other appearing in the Daily Jang, dated 7-7-1988 requiring the candidates for the posts of Sub-Engineers to appear for interview alongwith original documents on 17-7-1988 in the office of Sub-Project Manager. In both these advertisements, the requisite qualifications for the post of Sub- Engineer were mentioned as Degree in Agriculture or Civil or Mechanical Engineering or diploma in Civil or Mechanical Engineering. Unless it was proved otherwise, it was presumed that the qualifications specified in the aforesaid advertisements were in keeping with the prescribed qualifications. As pointed out above no rules were however, produced in rebuttal of the above presumption. It is an admitted position that none of the appellants possessed the said qualifications when they were appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis. For regularisation of their appointments when they appeared before the Departmental Selection Committee there too, they could not prove that they possessed the required qualifications. On the contrary it was disclosed before the Committee that appellant Zulfiqar Ali I had diploma in Auto-Diesel and Farm Technology, appellant Ghulam Anwar possessed diploma in `Mechanical with specialisation in Tool Design and Tool Making' and appellant Abdul Qayoom had done diploma in `Auto and Farm'. Consequently instead of regularising their appointments, the Selection Committee recommended for termination of their services. The recommendations of the Selection Committee apart, even on the appellants' own admission that they did not possess the requisite qualification namely diploma in Mechanical Engineering, they were not qualified to continue in the posts of Sub-Engineers. However, on behalf of appellant Ghulam Anwar it was faintly argued that his qualification namely `Mechanical Specialisation in Tool Design and Tool Making' was covered by the prescribed qualification of diploma in `Mechanical Engineering'. The above argument was controverted by the learned AA.-G. who showed us the prospectus of Government College of Technology, Hyderabad for Diploma of Associate Engineer (1985-86). At page 2 of the said prospectus were listed the Technologies offered and seats available. It would appear from that list that `Mechanical Technology' at S. No.-, (iv) is mentioned separately from `Tool Design and Tool Making Technology' appearing at S.No. (v). Accordingly we were not impressed by the argument that the qualifications possessed by appellant Ghulam Anwar could be bracketted with the requisite qualifications for Sub-Engineer's post. We are of the view that since the appellants lacked the requisite qualification, there was nothing wrong with the impugned orders of termination of their services. Despite our above findings, the question that still agitated our mind was whether the appellants would carry the stigma of tampering of the documents the), had produced at the time of their appointment. Admittedly detailed enquiry was not held under the said rules and therefore the parties did not get opportunity to produce necessary evidence to prove their respective view points. As pointed out above, of course, the presumption could be raised that the appellants had indulged in tampering of the documents in question. But such presumption was rebut-able and the party affected by it could successfully rebut the same if he had positive evidence to that effect. Two of the appellants have already alleged that the tampering was done at the level of the departmental authorities. May be if they were given opportunity through holding full dress enquiry, they could have proved their contention. Moreover, there are other factors also which cannot be easily overlooked. If the appellants had taken the risk of tampering, they would have started the mischief right from the original documents. However, there is no indication on record that even the original documents were found distorted. On the contrary it appears from the show-cause notice served on the appellants, that the tampering of the documents came to light on verification of the original documents which means that the said documents were intact. Our attention was also invited to the letter of the Sub Project Manager, dated 24-2-1988 addressed to the Director-General, Agricultural Engineering and Water Management enclosing a copy of seniority list of Ministerial and Technical staff working in Command Water Management Project Sindh Kandiaro. In the said list the appellants were shown to possess their genuine qualifications. Thus, if the departmental authorities knew about their real qualifications on 24-2-1988, how would they reconcile their version contained in the show-cause notice that tamperings came to light during the appellants' interview before the Selection Committee on 17-7-1988. In this connection the departmental authorities owed an explanation as to source of information about appellants' real qualifications, which was not forthcoming. They also had to explain the delay caused in booking the appellants in spite of the disclosure about their real qualifications through seniority list. These questions have obviously remained unanswered. Accordingly it would not be just and fair to hold the appellants guilty of tamperings on the basis of only rebut-able presumptions. Taking the above discussion into consideration we hold that the charge of tampering of the documents in question was not proved, against the appellants. Consequently the words relating to the said charge be deleted from the impugned order which should be revised so as to read that the appellants' services were terminated only for want of the prescribed qualifications. Subject to the observations made hereinabove, all the three appeals are dismissed with no orders as to costs. M.Y.H./226/Sr.S Appeals dismissed.