1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Brief facts as found on record are that the appellant was a Grade‑18 Officer of the Government of Sind and was holding the post of Medical Officer, Medico‑Legal Section, Liaquat Medical College, Hospital, Hyderabad. He was transferred and posted as Medical Officer, Taluka Hospital Diplo against a newly‑created post vide Notification No. SOII(H)14 (744)/73, dated 4th August, 1980 of the Health and Social Welfare Department. The appellant applied for transfer T. A. and D. A. and entered into some correspondence with Director Health Hyderabad. The appellant further alleged that he reported for duty to D. H. O. Mirpurkhas on 10th September, 1980 but did not take over charge of the post. He was issued a show‑cause notice under rule 5(3) of E & D Rules vide letter No. SOII(H)14 (744)/73, dated 18th October, 1980 by Secretary Health in the capacity of authorised officer. Briefly the charges were as under: ‑ (a) The appellant in his letter, dated 21st August, 1980 addressed to Director Health Services Sind, Hyderabad had misrepresented facts, made false statements and levelled allegations against him. (b) A copy of the above letter was forwarded by the appellant to the District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which created confusion and undermined the official prestige of his superiors. (c) Again the appellant by his letter, dated 2nd September, 1980 addressed to 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad made false allegations against the Director Health Services and misrepresented facts. (d) The appellant made false allegations and imputed improper motives to Director Health Services Sind. (e) In a letter, dated 3rd September, 1980 the appellant again mis represented facts and levelled baseless allegations against the Director, the letter was addressed to District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in the same letter the appellant made false allegations against Dr. Mughal and informed the Sessions Judge, that the Certificates and papers were lying with Dr. Mughal which was untrue. (f ) he appellant used a language which reflected an attitude of arrogance and insolence. He also suspected the bona fides of the transferring authority and attributed motives to him. (g) he appellant did not assume the charge of the post at Diplo inspite of clear order given to him by the Director in his letter No. E‑1/4407, dated 9th September, 1980 although the transfer order was dated 4th August, 1980. The appellant replied to the show‑cause notice in which‑ he stated‑that he was being transferred to an imaginary post, which existed only on paper, that he was victim of conspiracies in which police officials were also involved. In a murder case of one‑Mr. Nisar Baig, the appellant was approached by Dr. Rafique Choudhry and Dr. Mughal who pressed him not to mention injuries found on the deceased in the post‑mortem report. They also wanted the appellant to report it as a case of natural death due to disease. The appellant was given threats of death and arrest so that he change; his report. Since then Dr. Choudhry and Dr. Ansari became inimical to him. The appellant argued that he had discharged his duties with honesty and integrity and that he had put in about 23 years of service. He was not awarded any punishment before. He had once received a show- cause notice to which he gave a reply and the matter was dropped. The appellant prayed that his prayer as given in the appeal be accepted. Mr. Hassan Akbar. Assistant Advocate‑General argued that there is no legal flaw in the procedure adopted by the Government for dismissing the appellant from service. He was given a show‑cause notice as required under the rules and after considering his reply a decision was taken. This is a case of disobedience/misconduct to carry out Government orders as the appellant did not join his post at Diplo. Further, the appellant was dismissed for misconduct on account of the charges as shown m the show‑cause notice. His explanation was found unsatisfactory. The A. A.‑G. however, con ceded that ;the punishment of dismissal was too harsh for the type of misconduct committed by the appellant particularly in view of his long service of about 23 years. In order to see that no injustice or unfair treatment is meted out to the appellant the Tribunal directed the Assistant Advocate‑General to produce the personal file containing his service record and the A.C.Rs. for scrutiny. The personal file of the appellant and A.C.Rs. available on record were seen by the Tribunal: The officer generally had been honest, sincere and hard working. He; however, could not get along well with his colleagues,, superiors. The Tribunal has given careful consideration to all the circumstances of the case as is evident from the facts available on record and in view of the long service of about 22 years put in by the appellant) and taking into consideration the opinion of the Assistant Advocate‑General it is found that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and is, therefore, reduced to one of compulsory retirement. The appellant will be entitled to pension as admissible under the rules. With this modification of punishment from dismissal to one of compulsory retirement the) appeal is otherwise dismissed with no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal partly accepted.