2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.

Appellant, Ali Shan Ghori has filed instant service appeal against the impugned order dated 25.04.2017, passed by the learned Appellate Authority of District Jamshoro, whereby his appeal against the order dated 13.10.2016, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jamshoro imposing on him major penalty of dismissal from service was dismissed.

2. Necessary facts spelt out from instant appeal are that appellant was appointed as Computer Hardware/Network Technician (BPS-14) in Judicial District Jamshoro vide appointment order dated 15.04.2013. The allegations were levelled against him that complainant namely, Mst. Sabira, Saba and Salman, recorded their statements before District and Sessions Judge, Jamshoro @ Kotri, in Succession Application No.10 of 2004 [re: Muhammad Rizwan v. Mst. Sabira and others), alleging that appellant had taken an amount Rs.2000/- for each minor, to be paid as office expenses and the complainant party had paid him such amount of Rs.6000/- after taking loan from someone. Thereafter, the complainant again applied for return of special savings certificate of remaining two minors namely, Salman and Saba, when they attained the age of majority. It is alleged that appellant again demanded Rs.4000/-, which were also given to him by the complainant. When the same fact was disclosed in presence of Mr. Naveed Bhatti, Deputy Accountant of Judicial District Jamshoro of taking an amount Rs.4000/-, the appellant returned the said amount on her demand.

3. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, an Explanation was issued to the appellant on 08.06.2016 and his reply was found unsatisfactory by Competent Authority and on 13.06.2016, a charge sheet with statements of allegation was also issued to the appellant. Thereafter, appellant filed his written defence on 20.06.2016, which was too found unsatisfactory, as such, an inquiry was ordered and conducted for malpractice, corruption and professional misconduct, as provided under Sindh Civil Servant (E&D) Rules, 1973. It appears that Senior Civil Judge, Kotri was appointed as inquiry officer and after concluding the inquiry, he submitted his report, stating therein that the allegation of corruption and malpractice within the ambit of professional misconduct were proved against the appellant. On the basis of said inquiry report, the appellant was served with final show-cause notice on 11.08.2016 and on submission of his reply, the District and Sessions Judge, Jamshoro vide order dated 13.10.2017, imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant. The said order was assailed before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed through impugned order, hence, this appeal.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that appellant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case with mala fide intention of the complainants in collusion with some staff members of District Court Jamshoro and the appellant has not committed any offence and entire case/inquiry is based on false story; that the appellant and complainants are close relatives to each other; that complainant, Mst. Sabira and her witnesses have not disclosed the date and time of the payment of bribe to the appellant; that Deputy Accountant of the District Court Jamshoro in his statement has stated that appellant has returned Rs.4000/- to the complainant in the succession application; that the evidence so brought in this case either before Inquiry Officer or before District Judge Jamshoro are contradictory to each other on material particulars of the case hence, cannot be relied upon, but the learned District Judge and Inquiry Officer did not consider it in its true perspective and awarded major penalty of dismissal from the service without assigning any good reason; that Inquiry Officer also not considered the evidence of Mr. Asif Ali Bhatti, Advocate, who in his evidence before Inquiry Officer has deposed that he received Rs.6000/- from complainant as professional fee, thereafter, he filed application along with Vakalatnama, whereby the Sessions Judge Jamshoro ordered for release of saving certificate in favour of minors; that remaining amount of Rs.4000/- was returned to the complainant on the directions of Mr. Naveed Bhatti, Deputy Accountant on good faith. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has also reiterated the same facts and grounds, which he has mentioned in the memo. of appeal and prayed that impugned orders may be set-aside by allowing this appeal.

5. As against this, learned Assistant Advocate General, Sindh, has supported the impugned orders by arguing that the impugned orders have been passed after due appreciation of all facts and the appellant is involved in malpractice, corruption and professional misconduct and this fact has been proved in the evidence of Mst. Sabira, Salman and Saba before the Inquiry Officer and District Judge, who had no enmity with the appellant, as such, he has been rightly dismissed from service on the basis of said evidence/record.

6. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have gone through the entire record so made available before us, with the able assistance of the parties' Counsel.

7. In order to substantiate the allegations as stated in the charge sheet and statement of allegations, Muhammad Naveed Bhatti (Deputy Accountant), Mst. Sabira (complainant of the case), Salman (son of complainant), have recorded their statements before the Inquiry Officer. A bare perusal of material collected during inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Baloch, Senior Civil Judge, District Jamshoro @ Kotri, reveals that Mst. Sabira and Salman in their statements, recorded by District Judge Jamshoro, as well as during the inquiry proceedings have categorically stated that previously appellant (Ali Shan Ghouri) had obtained Rs.6000/- as office expenses from Mst. Sabira for release of savings certificate of her three children and thereafter, when Salman and Saba became major, he again obtained from her Rs.4000/- as office expenses for the release of savings certificate, for which there was no need, but this time his fraud was exposed before Mr. Naveed Bhatti, Deputy Accountant at District Jamshoro, hence, appellant returned the amount to them. Mst Sabira and Salman the real aunt and cousin of appellant in the evidence have narrated in details that how they were cheated by appellant on the pretext of help. Appellant had cross-examined them at length, but failed to shatter their evidence. Mst. Sabira faced the lengthy cross and denied the suggestion that appellant had engaged advocate for them and she had given the amount of Rs.6000/- to advocate directly. We have noted that Mst. Sabira and Salman unambiguously stated in their evidence that appellant again received Rs.4000/- towards office expenses, which was no need of paying such amount for releasing the saving certificate of remaining two children namely, Salman and Saba in the said succession application and, thereafter, he returned the same to the complainant, but the appellant was not cross-examined on this vital point, as such, aforesaid evidence remained unchallenged, hence, such part of the evidence given in examination-in-chief could be deemed to be admitted and accepted by the appellant to be correct. In this respect, we are fortified with the case of Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others reported as 2001 SCMR 1700 and Chief Engineer Irrigation Department, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and 2 others v. Mazhar Hussain and 2 others reported as PLD 2004 SC 682.

8. As observed above, both the above witnesses are close relatives of appellant and apparently, have got no ill will, hostility, mala fide or grudge against him. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. As far as, the plea taken by appellant that Mst. Sabira had given the amount of Rs.6000/- to advocate Mr. Asif Ali Bhatti directly is concerned; suffice it to say that appellant Ali Shan (Ghori was not an illiterate or layman. He being employee of District Courts Office was very much aware that for the release/return of saving certificate of minors neither there was any need of engaging advocate nor any expenditure. Therefore, in our view, he got the application filed along with power through advocate just to save himself and cover his corrupt act. Our above observations find support with the fact that appellant also again cheated his aunt and took from her Rs.4000/- as office expenses for the release of saving certificate of her other two children, but matter was exposed before Mr. Naveed Bhatti, Deputy Accountant of District Court, resultantly, on the demand of Mst. Sabira, appellant was compelled to return the said amount to her. Mr. Muhammad Naveed Bhatti, Deputy Accountant, has also supported the version of complainant. During the course of arguments, we have specifically asked the question from learned Counsel for the appellant to explain why the appellant had taken the amount for release of savings certificate for which there was no need, he had no answer, however, learned Counsel has referred to the alleged contradictions in the evidence of complainant and his witnesses in his favour in a manner as if he was facing charge in criminal case. No doubt there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, but the same are of no consequences, insofar, the accusations of the appellant are concerned. No documentary evidence is available on record to show that complainant (Mst. Sabira) had any ill motive with the appellant. Merely saying that appellant has family dispute with the complainant (Mst. Sabira) is not enough to prove this fact, however, no family member or relative has been examined by the appellant in this regard. Therefore, the appellant has failed to discharge the burden lay on him on this particular aspect of the case.

9. The above circumstances clearly show the involvement of the appellant in corruption and malpractice falling within the ambit of professional misconduct rendering him liable for disciplinary action. In our considered view, charge of corruption and misconduct has been proved against him.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality has been found/pointed out in the impugned orders. Learned District Judge and learned Appellate Authority while passing the impugned orders have appreciated all the facts involved in the case. We, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, could not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. ZC/A-101/Sindh Appeal dismissed.