2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant with the leave of the Court has filed the present appeal to challenge the judgment of Sindh Service Tribunal Karachi dated 31-1-2008 by which the appeal against the minor penalty imposed upon him for recovery of amount of Rs.11,31,916 was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant along with 8 other officials were dismissed from service vide order dated 12-6-1996 under a departmental proceedings. The appellant filed departmental appeal by which the order of dismissal was withdrawn and the appellant who was Superintendent in Irrigation Department was reinstated by order dated 5-9-1997. He retried from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 19-10-1999, however, during the process of recovery of pensionery benefits he came to know that an order dated 15-11-2000 was passed by which penalty of recovery of amount of Rs.11,31,916 was imposed upon him. It was alleged that the appellant was penalized without serving a charge-sheet, holding inquiry or giving a show-cause notice and without providing any opportunity to defend him. Nevertheless he preferred a departmental appeal on 11-12-2000 which was not decided thereafter he made representation on 5-11-2003 complaining about non-disposal of his departmental appeal. The said representation was disposed of vide order dated 13-1-2008 by which it was ordered that the representation was not maintainable hence he filed the appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed under the impugned order. Learned Advocate for appellant mainly argued that the minor penalty was imposed without framing charge or holding inquiry or providing any opportunity to him therefore the impugned order may be set aside. Conversely the learned Additional Advocate-General has stated that the minor penalty was not imposed through a separate inquiry but it was part and parcel of the order dated 5-9-2007 by which the appellant was reinstated. He has referred to summary submitted to the Chief Minister available at page 51 by which the Governor in the absence of Chief Minister approved the para 6 of the summary which is reproduced. "Keeping in view the above facts it is proposed that Mr. Shafi Muhammad Sand, Superintending Engineer, may be reinstated in service by imposing some minor penalty (at the level of C.S./S&GAD). Revenue Department may be directed to assist this 'Department for recovering the advance payments made to the contractors as arrears of land revenue by `confiscating their properties, so that, the losses sustained by Government are recovered." He has further stated that pursuance of the said order the calculations were made in order to ascertain the loss caused to Government and after assessing the said amount the order was communicated to the appellant. Confronted with the above situation the learned Advocate for appellant could not controvert the above position but simply stated that it was not communicated to him. The para 6 of the summary is clear and specific which covers the present case therefore it cannot be said that minor penalty was result of separate allegation for which a separate departmental inquiry should have been initiated. We have gone through the impugned order and find that the Service Tribunal has examined all the aspects of the case properly. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which does not require any interference. Appeal has no merits therefore the same is dismissed. H.B.T./S-27/SC Appeal dismissed.