1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The Court of Inquiry, therefore, recommended :‑

(1) Severe disciplinary action against Mr. Abdul Ghani Soomro, Head Clerk. (2) Disciplinary action against Muhammad Omar, Bill Clerk and Muhammad Bnx Taluka Master. (3) Departmental action against (a) Kazi Zahoor Ahmad, (b) Abdul Samad, Headmaster, (c) Raisuddin the 3 present appellants and (d) Muhammad Nasim, Headmaster. The Sub‑Divisional Education Officer, Hyderabad thereupon issued show‑cause notice under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 informing them of the findings recorded by the Court of Inquiry ordered by the D. M. L. A., Hyderabad, calling upon each of them, why one of the major penalties be not imposed upon each of them. After getting their explanations final order dated 11th July, 1982 was passed by the District Education Officer (Boys), Hyderabad compulsorily retiring the three appellants from Government service with immediate effect. The appellants then preferred appeals to the Director of Education. Thereafter they preferred the service appeals before this Tribunal. It has been argued by Mr. Aftab Ahmad Sheikh on behalf of appel lants Zahoor Ahmad and Abdul Samad that the alleged facts do not make out a case of complicity of these appellants in the fraud committed by Head Clerk, Abdul Ghani Soomro. Mr. Abdul Aleem Chauhan has also adopted the same argument in respect of appellant Raisuddin. It may, in this connection, be pointed out that the conduct of these Headmasters subsequent to the issue of these orders would clearly give rise to an inference that the three appellants had actively connived and suppressed the irregularities and illegalities which were committed to make payment of salaries to these teachers without the knowledge of the S. D. E. O. For instance, separate D. Sheets were prepared for these teachers by these appellants instead of including their names in the regular D. Sheets. Their appointment on the deputation was accepted, although, there were no such orders received by them in writing. In the first month of appointment before preferring the bills their original certificate of educa tional qualifications, domicile etc. were to be submitted to .the S. D. E. O. but this was not done. The payments were to be made by the Taluka Master as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, but in case of these teachers the payment was received from the Head Clerk either by the Headmasters or the teachers were asked to receive payment direct from Head Clerk. The only explanation offered for these irregularities by the appellants is that they were asked to do so by the Head Clerk, Mr. Abdul Ghani. But if they had been innocent they could have found out the fraud and insisted on the proper procedure being followed regarding payment of salaries and deputation etc. The evidence of Mr. Kamal‑ud‑Din, S. D. E. O., Hyderabad, clearly shows that these fictitious orders were issued by Mr. Abdul Ghani, Head Clerk, with combined collaboration of the Headmasters of concerned schools, viz., Mr. Zaboor Ahmad, Mr. Abdul Samad, Mr. Rais Ahmad and others. It is thus clear that the three appellants were a party to this conspiracy and it is quite possible that each of them had taken part in perpetuation of this fraud. Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. Abdul Aleem Chauhan that since the report of the Court of Inquiry had been made the basis for issue of show‑cause notice to the appellants copy of the inquiry report should have been sent to the appellants alongwith these notices to enable them to prepare their defence. It may, however, be pointed out that the three appellants were very much associated with Martial Law Inquiry and they had been examined in detail by the Court. The inquiry, therefore, did not take place behind their back. Possibly they were aware of the report of the Court of Inquiry as there is nothing to show that the report was denied to them or was not supplied to them. In any case gist of the findings of the Court or Inquiry against each of the three appellants was communicated to these appellants in the body of the show. cause notice. In case of appellant Zahoor Ahmad it was stated in the notice that the following charges‑were proved in the Court of Inquiry against him, viz.:‑ (1) He made separate D. Sheets for three teachers on the instructions of Head Clerk and got payment of Rs. 1,564.50 from Taluka Master, Hyderabad for (1) 1kramuddin (2) Muhammad Farooq and (3) Salam Khan for September, 1979. (2) He allowed Mr. Jamil Ahmad to join on deputation without least bothering whether he was originally appointed at G. P. S. Qadir Bux Laghari and he never checked with the said school. (3) He blinded himself to the fact that Mr. Jamil Ahmad alone was getting pay from the head office contrary to the normal pro cedure. In the show‑cause notice to appellant Abdul Samad also it was clearly stated that the following charges had been proved against him at the Court of Inquiry :‑ (1) Messrs Muhammad Hanif and Ashfaque Ahmad were appointed and posted in his school ; be made separate D. Sheets for them and he did not care how they were to get their pay from Head Clerk. (2) He did not care to take the deputation orders when these two teachers were said to have been deputed to Tando Muhammad Khan after one month. (3) He paid Rs. 701 received from the Head Clerk and gave the separate D. Sheets to the Head Clerk, though in the ordinary course the payment should have been received from the Taluka Master. Lastly, in case of appellant Raisuddin it was mentioned in the show cause notice that the following charges were proved against him before the Court of Inquiry :‑ (1) That he got deputation order of Messrs Muhammad Naeem and Zakir Hussain orally through the Head Clerk. (2) He paid salaries to these teachers after getting them from the Head Clerk and not from the Taluka Master according to the usual practice. (3) He never brought this matter to the notice of the S. D. E. O., Hyderabad. Under the circumstances no prejudice could have been caused to the appellants even if they did not receive the copies of the inquiry report as alleged by them now in their arguments. This fact was not even specifically mentioned by them in the memo. of appeal. Mr. Muhammad Aqil for appellant Abdul Samad has argued that his client was not the main culprit but was shown in the third category and departmental action had been recommended against him. In this regard it may be stated that he has not been awarded the extreme penalty but has only been compulsorily retired. The position of Headmaster of a primary school is a delicate one. He should be above all suspicion. The person found to have been party to a fraud of this nature cannot be dealt with more leniently and allowed to remain in charge of a primary school. There is, therefore, no substance in these appeals and they are all dismissed with no order as to costs. A.E Appeals dismissed