1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

DR. A. Q. QAZI (MEMBER).‑‑This order shall decide and dispose of Appeal No.l of 1985 filed by appellant Khuda Bux Baloach an ex‑Divisional Forest Officer against the order of his dismissal from service.

2. In order to appreciate and understand this very complex case, in which the appellant has come for the third time for relief to this Tribunal we shall have to have thorough knowledge of the facts which help understanding the bona fide/ mala fides of this case apart from understanding the niceties of law involved.

3. Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach the appellant was selected by the Sind Public Service Commission for the appointment as Divisional Forest Officer and he completed the prescribed training and was posted as Divisional Forest Officer Planning. The appellant for the first time held the independent charge of a Forest Division as Divisional Forest Officer Khairpur. It is the appellant's word in Memo of appeal that he was working with all his energy and honesty when the jurisdiction of his Forest Division was extended to two Civil Districts that is Khairpur and Nawabshah and that some of the felled material was to be stored at Amri being an area which is lying in Dadu District and as such indirectly his jurisdiction extended to Dadu District also.

4. In his memo of appeal he further states that he was doing all well till the time he started complaining of an old tettering type of jeep which was purchased as back as in 1961 as the same was registered on 27‑12‑1961 and due to repeated failure of this jeep he was experiencing serious difficulties of field 4upervision and execution. He therefore moved for the repairs/ replacement of the said jeep and continued to agitate the office of the Conservator of the Forest Utilisation Circle Hyderabad regarding this matter. He has complained that the Conservator of Forests did not understand his difficulties and ignored all these requests and paid no heed to the same and tension grew to a state where he wrote a nasty emotional letter which annoyed the Conservator of Forest who was his immediate Controlling Officer. It is his complaint that only after that he had agitated his difficulties in field administration and dropped an angry note that he received a charge‑sheet alongwith a statement of allegations dated 11th June, 1977. This original charge‑sheet comprised of 16 allegations levelled against him and in furtherance to this 2nd charge‑sheet was received by him on 23rd July, 1977 which will be called as supplementary charge‑sheet. This supplementary charge‑sheet contained two charges.

5. It appears that two cases were also framed against him. The Anti‑Corruption Police at Khairpur registered one case. This case was proceeded with at the Court of Special Judge Anti‑Corruption at Sukkur in Case No 53/79 as State v. Khuda Bux son of Pir Muhammad Baloach and another separate case was filed against appellant which was placed before the Anti‑Corruption Committee No.l in its meeting held on 27‑4‑1981. The Case No. 53/79 was heard by Special Judge Anti‑Corruption‑cum‑Inquiry Officer Sukkur, learned Judge Mr. AJ Bachani, who acquitted Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach and first case was accordingly decided on 22‑12‑1980. The second case which was put up before the Anti‑Corruption Committee No.l who decided to classify the case under section 173, Cr.P.C. (untraced) and disposed of accordingly.

6. As stated above appellant Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach was issued charge‑sheets on 11‑6‑1977 and 23‑7‑1977 and Mr. Bahauddin Sirhendi, Conservator of Forest Aforestation Circle Hyderabad was appointed as an Enquiry Officer who accordingly held an enquiry and submitted report and on this report the appellant was dismissed from service by the Government of Sind w.e.f. 10‑10‑1977. The appellant filed a Service Appeal No. 11 of 1978, which was later withdrawn on 9‑4‑1981, and the operative para of the decision of Sind Service Tribunal, is reproduced to read as: "The withdrawal of service appeal is accordingly allowed with a permission to the appellant to file fresh appeal if the same is still maintainable and subject to all just exceptions. Meanwhile the appellant is at liberty to move the Reviewing Authority namely the Chief Minister/MLA Zone 'C' to decide his review petition which continues to remain pending." The appellant, in pursuance of this decision proceeded to move MLA Zone 'C' to whom he had already filed the review petition which was pending since October, 1977. This review petition was rejected by the Governor/MLA on 19‑12‑1982 and the appellant again moved the Sind Service Tribunal in his second service Appeal No. 4 of 1983 which was decided on 31‑1‑1984. The learned Tribunal was then headed by Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Mushtak Ali Kazi, Chairman, who remanded this case back to the Forest Department in view of the decision given by the Supreme Court P L D 1981 SC 176 in case of Syed Mir Muhammad v. NWFP Government which clearly laid down that in cases where an Enquiry Officer has been appointed copy of the Enquiry Report alongwith proposed action and the opportunity of being heard in person cannot be done away with. In view of above Supreme Court decision the Service Tribunal remanded the case back with the instruction "that a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer alongwith the show‑cause notice indicating the grounds and the proposed penalty be supplied to the accused officer, further he be given the opportunity of being heard in person and thereafter fresh appropriate orders be passed by the competent Authority" .

7. In pursuance of the above order of Sind Service Tribunal, a copy of the Enquiry Report, Supplementary Enquiry, Report and a third Enquiry Report was supplied to the appellant. A final show‑cause notice was issued to him on 8th March, 1984 whereby he was called upon to show‑cause within 14 days as to why a major penalty of dismissal from service may not be imposed upon him. He replied to the show‑cause notice and finally he was dismissed from service on 16‑8‑1984, vide Order No. WL & FT (SOI)‑17(1)/1983 dated 17‑8‑1984. The appellant preferred an appeal to the MLA Zone 'C' on 12‑9‑1984 (Annex.31) of the appeal and the same was not decided within the statutory period of ninety days. He has now filed present Service Appeal No. 1 of 1980 in which Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach has pleaded not guilty and has alleged serious mala fides against the then Conservator of Forests and has prayed for following specific reliefs. (i) That the suspension order dated 6th July, 1977 may be declared as null and void. (ii) That the suspension order dated 1st March, 1984 may be declared as null and void. (iii) That the order of dismissal dated 16th August, 1984 may be declared as null and void. (iv) That he may be re‑instated into service with effect from 16th June, 1977. (v) That he may be allowed all the back benefits.

8. In written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents it has been denied that there was any mala fides on part of the Conservator of the Forest, and that the reports on the unserviceable jeep was not the cause of the dispute. The respondents further state and argue that instead of taking a officer like attitude, the appellant continued to insist on the transfer of the jeep driver and adopted stubborn and audacious attitude, which was unbecoming of an officer of his status and grade. It has been further denied that the Conservator of the Forest initiated an Anti‑Corruption Case No 53 of 1979 and it is stated that the above case was established on its own. It is further their stance that the case in which judgment was passed by the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, though no criminal case was made out against the appellant, but the judgment contained observations that the appellant be dealt with departmentally. In the written statement, it is further denied that the three charge‑sheets issued were mala fide and outcome of the personal grudge of the Conservator of Forest and were the result of appellant's own acts of omission and commission. It has been asserted that it was the behaviour of the officer and not the mala fides of the department which has led to his dismissal. It has been further denied that any documents were kept secret from the appellant to make him defenceless.

9. We have heard the deliberations at length. This is complex case which involved two charge‑sheets with 18 allegations and involved the earlier two judgments given by this very Tribunal. We have also examined the two judgments, one of the. Special Judge Anti‑Corruption Mr.A.J. Bachani and the second a decision letter of the Anti‑Corruption Committee No.l headed by the Chief Secretary and we have also examined the record which was made available to us. We have gone through extensively the enquiry report of Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer: This Enquiry Report comprises of 40 or more foolscap pages. We have also led the oral evidence necessary in light of the views of the Anti‑Corruption Establishment and the Forest Department. This case was extensively argued by the learned A AG Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi and at later stages by Mr.Rasheed Akhtar Qureshi and Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori and we have heard the appellant in person though he was presented at the earlier hearings by his learned counsel Mr. Naimatullah Qureshi. Divisional Forest Officer direction Hyderabad Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Sorahio has assisted this Tribunal throughout to reach the conclusions.

10. With this background we shall now return to the merits of the case in respect of facts and law. Following points emerged before the Tribunal for determination and resolution. (i) are the eighteen charges /chargesheet sparked off as a result of a 'nasty letter' and as such mala fide? (ii) If not mala fide then how many charges were dropped and how many of these remaining could be proved beyond any doubt? (iii) Do the charges, which are proved, warrant the punishment of dismissal? We shall examine this case in reference to these points and confine our attention to the above orbit only.

11. We shall examine the first point first. It is the contention of the appellant that the charges against him are mala fide and were subsequent to the fact that he continuously requested his Conservator of the Forest Mr. GD. Memon to replace the old unserviceable tettering type of jeep and that his relation with the Conservator grew tense. We shall try to find a factual evidence to this serious allegation of Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach and if not so then there must exist a positive circumstantial evidence to this allegation. We have extensively gone through the record of ist, 2nd 3rd appeal, to this Tribunal, record made available and the written statement of the respondents, signed by the Secretary Government of Sind, Wild Life and Forest Department we have traced the employment record of Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach and find that he was selected by Sind Public Service Commission as a candidate DFO underwent successfully training at Pakistan Forest Institute of Peshawar from late 1972 to 1974. After completing this cause he was attached with a Divisional Forest Officer with effect from 1‑10‑1974. He completed his training and he was posted as a Divisional Forest Officer in Planning Division, the office of the Chief Conservator Forest of Sind Hyderabad with effect from 3‑11‑1975 the post which he held till 7‑5‑1976. This we take from first para of the written statement of the official respondent. Obviously and very clearly from late 1972 to mid of 1976 Mr. Baloach was not indicated of a bad record and there was no stigma of any kind attached to his career or character almost for over a period of 4 years.

12. Appellant Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach held for the first time the independent charge as DFO w.e.f. 10‑7‑1976 when he was posted as a DFO Khairpur Division. It is evident to us from the record and there are 5 letters which have been written from the office of DFO Forest Division Khairpur to the Conservator of Forest Sukkur Circle on the subject of replacement of old jeep. These letters speak about the condition of an old tettering type of jeep No LEB‑5

45. This jeep has also been a subject of discussion in the earlier correspondence that we can find from the record. It occurs to us that the correspondence in regard to this jeep and its driver Ghulam Sarwar has sparked to the subsequent issue and finally we find that the matter has gone to its climax when the DFO has just lost his nerves and has addressed two angry notes No. BI(d)/1641 of 1976‑77 dated 27th December, 1976 and No DO/1934 of 76‑77 Khairpur of 24‑1‑1977. These two letters appear to us to have caused the subsequent proceedings, that eliminated in DFO's dismissal. We find that from end of 1972 to end of 1976 there has been a complete calm and no charges whatsoever were ever communicated to the appellant. Nothing is found in record which would speak against the appellant in the aforesaid period. The last letter that Mr. Baloach addressed to the Conservator of Forest was on 24th January, 1977 and on 16‑2‑1977 he received letter bearing No.61 from the Office of Conservator of the Forest titled 'misconduct'. Opening para of the letter reads as under. "It has been reported by the Conservator of Forest Utilization that your work and conduct during the period you have remained incharge of Khairpur‑Nawabshah Utilization Division has been extremely unsatisfactory. It has been that ..................... Sd/‑ Hameed Ahmed, Chief Conservator of Forest Sind Hyd." A reading of the opening paragraph of the reproduced letter indicates that Conservator of Forest did not like the work and conduct of the appellant and reported in some confidential manner, the comments of the earlier disputed letter written by Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach in connection with the repairs of the jeep of which he (The Conservator) has taken very strong exception. It appears to us that Mr. Baloach replied to these three charges of Misconduct. We have searched all the material available to us on the record in connection with this appeal and even two earlier connected appeals and we have not found anything incriminating against the appellant prior to his 'angry note' to the Conservator of the Forest. We simply find that all the actions have been contemplated subsequent to the above said 'angry note we are of the view that above letter has triggered a serious administrative scuffle. The tension between' the DFO and the Conservator of Forest has been the cause of subsequent actions contemplated thereafter. Since we do not find any record of any stigma or blemish attached with the work and conduct of the appellant prior to this letter of 24‑1‑1977 we may therefore hold that the possibility of existence of mala fide could not be ruled out.

13. We now come to the second point which is related to the facts. Now we shall say that the alleged mala fide did not exist, even then the allegations in the charge‑sheet so shall have to be established and proved. In the written arguments submitted (which come from the main body of the Enquiry Report) a number of charges have been dropped and not proved. In fact 16 charges were framed against Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach in the first sheet. First ten in respect of 'misconduct' and latter six in respect of 'Inefficiency' Enquiry Officer dropped or could not prove charges Nos.2, 5, 6 and

10. It is the contention of the respondents in their written arguments which was submitted on their behalf by Mr.Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori that charges 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 stand proved. We shall not discuss those charges which are either dropped or not proved. We shall only confine our attention to those charges which have been proved and on basis of which the appellant has been awarded the punishment of dismissal. Since the appellant in the Memo of appeal has denied all proved charges again and has extended rigorous arguments at the bar shall examine remaining charges in detail and find if these have been proved beyond reasonable degree of doubt to warrant the said punishment of dismissal. Charge No.l‑!That during inspection of the Conservator of Forests, on 20‑4‑1977 and the Chief Conservator of Forests Sind (alongwith the Conservator of Forests) on 22‑4‑1977 of different forest depots of this division it was observed that the material at Sagyoon (pertaining to Mangimari forest) and Ahmedpur (pertaining to Malhi forest) Forest Depots was lying mixed up without any classification with the result that on the site it was not possible to distinguish the sold and unsold material. Such disorganised working resulted in confusion, to the detriment of the interest of the department". From the statements recorded at the bar and record produced by the department it has been established that the Conservator of the Forest did not visit the site on 20th April, 1977. It was, therefore, suggested at the bar that since the charge has been based on the visit of the Conservator of Forest to Khairpur Division the charge be not pressed and accordingly was not insisted upon. Charge No. 2‑‑Exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. Charge No.3‑‑"That during the inspection of his division by the Conservator of Forests. Utilization Circle, on 19th and 20th February, 1977, a number of lapses aimed at defrauding the Government as mentioned in the Inspection Note issued by Conservator of Forests, Utilization Circle Hyderabad vide his No.Gl/3421 dated 5‑3‑1977 (Annexres 'B') were noticed." The learned Enquiry Officer has admitted that 'there was no private sale' only transit of material was not proper for which the DFO has been held responsible. We are of the opinion (and this was agreed by all) that this charge did not bear any serious gravity. Charge No.4.‑‑"That the DFO has been sending sale lists actually after conducting the sales in disregard of standing practice. Examples in this respect are given below:

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

It has been the plea of the appellant that he has been continuously flowing the sale list as and when the material was ready for such a sale. We enquired from the Departmental Representative if there was any standing instruction in respect of the sales list being sent in advance before conducting the sale‑deed the department did affirm this. However, no such instruction was produced before us. We, therefore, infer that the instructions which might have existed were not in the knowledge of the DFO. This charge is, therefore, proved to the extent of ignorance only. Charge Nos.5 and 6.‑‑Exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. Charge No.7.‑‑"That the Divisional Forest Officer addressed a D 0 Letter No.1834 dated 24‑1‑1977 to Mr. G D Memon CF in connection with the transfer of Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Jeep Driver which carries highly derogatory language against the superior officer. Such an action reflects attitude of extreme indiscipline and disregard of the official decorum on the part of DFO." Not denied by appellant. Proved. Charge No.8.‑‑"That while attending the sales at Sukkur on 10‑1‑1977 the DFO had casually mentioned to the CF that he wanted to go to Hyderabad for Radio talk on 12‑1‑1977. The CF however, informed him that since he was going to inspect the forests of his Division on these dates, he must not leave for Hyderabad, during that period. Despite such clear instruction he remained absent from Headquarters from 11‑1‑1977 to 13‑1‑1977, without permission. On personal enquiry by CF from the Radio Station at Hyderabad, he was informed that the DFO never attended the Radio Station on 12‑1‑1977. The DFO was thus, absconding from duty from 11‑1‑1977 to 13‑1‑1977 alongwith the Government jeep." The learned Enquiry Officer has confirmed in his findings that Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach was present at the Radio Station Hyderabad on 12‑1‑1977 and that the script of his talk was read without his being able to read himself. It is the plea of the appellant that he was sick, running severe temperature, cold and throat ache for some few days and as such though he was to deliver a talk on the Radio but because of his being sick the talk could not be read by himself. In view of this statement at the bar which is confirmed by a certificate of the Radio Pakistan Hyderabad, we are inclined to believe that he was sick and as such he could not deliver the talk on Radio Pakistan Hyderabad. We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that the DFO had absconded from duty. Charge No. 9.‑‑"That a meeting of the DFOs of the Utilization Circle was called on 26‑1‑1977 by the CF at Hyderabad to finalize the sale lists working periods, etc, for the open auction due on 27‑1‑1977, but the DFO did not attend the same." This charge relates to the meeting of DFO's Utilization Sukkur at Hyderabad to finalize the sales list working period etc. for the open auction due on 27‑1‑1977. It is charged that the 'DFO did not attend the same." We have examined the finding of the Enquiry Officer who felt that in case that the jeep of the DFO had failed between Khairpur to Hyderabad, he should have taken up any other conveyance to reach Hyderabad to attend the meeting. Instead he chose to work on the repairs of the jeep and reached late in evening at Hyderabad. It was however, stated at the bar that "the DFO did attend the meeting next day and was present in the conduct of the sale'. In view of position explained as above, we do not subscribe to 'the gravity of this charge. Charge No.10. ‑‑Exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. Charge No.11.‑‑"That DFO has exceeded the budget allocation amounting to Rs.3,25,000 of his Division and has incurred an expenditure of Rs.9,26,482 on departmental fellings upto 31‑3‑1977 while out of total target revenue of Rs.40,00,000 for his Division, he has hardly been able to realize revenue of Rs.11.22, 573 upto the above date which is 1/4th of the total revenue. A number of bigger lots of the .converted material particularly of the year 1975‑76 is still lying un-disposed off and DFO has failed to make any personal efforts for its disposal. " The learned Enquiry Officer has made following observations in his discussion and findings. "In the light of above communication the DFO cannot be held responsible for exceeding the budget allocation or expenditure" and "However, total revenue during the year was Rs.177,296 only goes against him and the charge stand proved against him. We have gone through the entire record available and find that DFO has exceeded the budget allocation but he has sought an earlier approval for excess expenditure vide Letter No. B‑1(b) /291 dated 1‑2‑1977 which is available on the record. We find that though the material which was felled was to the tune of 947.30 stacks all could not be brought on the sale list due to (1) difficulties of the transport and because that the (2) dacoits were active in the Sukkur Range and (3) the contractor not coming forward to purchase the material. We, therefore, could not hold the appellant entirely responsible for not being able to meet the revenue target, particularly when he was left with an old unserviceable jeep and with the above stated circumstances all not favourable to him. Charge No.12.‑‑"That he has also exceeded the budgetary allocation under the following sub‑heads in spite of repeated instructions not to do so. Budget Sub‑head Allocation for 1976‑77 Actuals upto 31‑5‑77 Amount incurred in excess 1.B.O.(3)(e) Machinery 7,750 16,448 8,698

2. B‑ I (a) (1). Lubricants 3, 400 15, 762 12, 362

3. C‑3(B) T.A. 4,000 11,930 7,930." The appellant Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach in his defence statement has argued that he had a very old jeep and that his jurisdiction extended to Khairpur/Nawabshah on the left Bank and to Amri on the right Bank of the river Indus and that amount was spent on repair and extensive tours which were advised in accordance with Instructions of the Forest Department under Letter No.E II (b)/3080 dated 20‑12‑1976 issued by Chief Conservator of Forest, and that the new Assistant Conservator of Forest was also posted in Khairpur/Nawabshah there was attached strength on DFO expenses. The learned Enquiry Officer has not discussed in details the submission of the DFO and has only observed that "such irregularities obviously are quite objectionable from the Audit Point if view". We have heard the arguments made at the bar and it was held that the gravity of this charge was not 'serious' inasmuch as the FO had the genuine difficulties explained at the bar and that any misappropriation has not committed oil the DFO's part. Charge 13.‑‑"The DFO has reported vide his Letter No.C‑VII‑B/2804, dated 15‑4‑1977, addressed to the Conservator of Forest, Utilization Circle, regarding shortage of material in Sakrand Range as below:‑ Cut Material in the felling Areas.

1. Material felled ...776 stacks

2. Material as per inspection 680 "

3. Shortage 96 " Cut Material in Depot. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Charge No.14.‑‑"The total loss sustained by the Government in respect of 382 stacks at average rate of Rs.2,000 stacks works out to Rs.7,64,

000. This has been due to DFO's inefficiency and lack of control." These charges were dropped in the first enquiry and formed the subject‑matter of the supplementary Enquiry Report. These charges will be dealt with simultaneously. Charges 13 and 14 were formulated earlier and were reframed after reassessment of the forest material. These formed the part of investigation with the Anti‑Corruption Establishment under Case No.39 of 1979. These are forcefully denied by appellant and we shall examine these charges more closely as there are of material importance. We shall now refer to Annexure 25 to this appeal which is a document submitted by DFO Khairpur/Nawabshah Utilization Division Khairpur. Annexure '25' Para.

9. Statement showing final quantity of the material achieved in Sakrand Range from the areas where work was in progress: Forests Comptt No Kind of felling Quantity & Material achieved. Mari 7, 3, 6, G.W.Cuts 30.44 Mari 66 G. W. Cuts 50.85 Lakhat 11,10,17,16,20 Erosion 23, 24, 25, 32, 33 Strip 296.24 Mad Nasri 2 , 8 , 9 Erosion Strip 147.11 924.44 (Sd.) DFO Khairpur/Nawabshah Utilization Div. Khairpur. This data has been supplied by the DFO (other than Mr. Baloach as an Annexure to a letter writes to Mr. Baloach. This letter has been produced as a part of documentary correspondence and is as Arnexure to Letter No.E‑I(d)/Estt, /3/9 of Hyderabad dated 16‑4‑1974 issued from the office of the Chief Conservator Forest Hyderabad under the title head of request to supply the copies: reply to the show‑cause notice". This letter showed a final figure which was supplied to the appellant (as accepted at bar) and which showed clearly that appellant achieved a target of 944.24 stacks total. This figure should be treated as authentic figure since it is supplied by the office of Chief Conservator Forests Mr. Baloach in his defence. If this was, the total quantity achieved as against an estimated quantity of about 788 stacks (Enquiry Officer Report) it appears that there is clear excess of 136 stacks. We fail to see as to how and from where this shortage has been determined. Learned Officer has made some observations in the report. Discussion on these allegations is not convincing and sending a supplementary note. These observations as are indeed very contradictory and are not based on any acceptable rationale. We cannot I feel as to how this shortage has been attributed to the appellant Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach. It is clear that whatever be the numbers around us that the final figure is a correct figure and we take it to be an authentic figure. This is the final felled material which was ultimately achieved and which was to be transported and put to sale. We therefore, cannot subscribed to the view held by the learned Enquiry Officer that there was any shortage and Government suffered a loss of accounts of Rs.7,00,

000. Infect let us honestly admit and say that as amount of Rs.1,72,000 was to be earned more (over and above the estimated) ultimately when the sale of this entire 924 stacks would be complete. This figure of 924 stacks total (which was not denied at the bar and final target achieved was obviously more than estimated target and that no ultimate loss was caused to the Government. We may only accept the view that entire material could not be put on sale. It could be a problem of efficiency. We, therefore, hold clearly the view that Mr. Baloach cannot be held responsible for any shortage of material or for any real factual loss caused to the Government. Defacte there was no defraud of "selling privately the shortage". Charge No.15.‑‑"That an application dated 9‑4‑1977 was given to the CCF by M/s. Ghulab Khan, Mazar Khan, Muhammad Yar Khan and Afzal Khan Pathan Labour Jamadars of Sakrand Range regarding non‑payment of their wages amounting to Rs.58,758, 33,340, 38,872 and 43,306 respectively. These applicants also appeared before the CCP at Khairpur and Sakrand for settlement of their wages. They alleged that although they were working as the authorized labour Jamadars and have long completed their work while the cheque for payment was issued by the DFO to one Noor Muhammad. They alleged that they have never seen so‑called Noor Muhammad Labour Jamadar whom the cheques were issued by the DFO Khairpur. Mr. Noor Muhammad has issued private cheque to the Labour. This action on the part of the DFO casts serious doubts about his honesty in working of the forests." This charge has been elaborately discussed by Mr. A.J. Bachani Special Judge‑cum‑Enquiry Officer Anti‑Corruption Sukkur vide the judgment announced in Case No.53 of 1979 which was decided on 22nd day of December, 1980. It was decided in the judgment that "his conduct, therefore, clearly dispel the doubt that Mr. Khuda Bux was in any way party to conspiracy‑‑however, there is no criminal case made out against Mr. Khuda Bux ..It will be proper that Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach be departmentally dealt as to explain why there is such violation of making heavy payments to contractors in advance". This charge of casting doubt on his honesty therefore falls apart. Charge No.16.‑‑"That he had been giving frequent cash advance to the labour Jamadar in contravention of financial rules. A list of such advances made by him from July to December 1976 is enclosed as Annexure "A". The learned Enquiry Officer has not done any discussion and he has not given any finding as to how the charge No.16 stands proved. The appellant Mr. Baloach does not deny this irregularity had admits that he had paid such advance to the labour (Jamadars) in exigency and interest of the work. According to him it is a usual practice. In all divisions in order to deal with acute shortage of labour. In our opinion we hold this to be an irregularity. We specifically asked that if these advances were subsequently cleared and we were told that works in respect of these advances were completed. Therefore, we do not find Mr. Kauda Bux Baloach to be direct beneficiary of these advances. We do find however, that the instructions of not giving the advances have not been followed and accordingly we do agree with the findings of the learned Enquiry Officer to that extent. Second Charge‑Sheet. (a) The first part of the second charge‑sheet is associated with the case which was dealt with by the Special Judge Anti- Corruption Sukkur and was disposed of accordingly as in our para 5, in which Mr. Khuda Bux Baloach was not held guilty and we do subscribe to the same view and shall not hold him guilty accordingly. (2) Second Part of the second charge‑sheet deals with the charges levelled against Mr. Baloach and Mr. Kausar Hussain Range Forest Officer. It is alleged that DFO alongwith Mr. Kausar Hussain followed the longer transport route to misuse the Government money. In this charge the learned Enquiry Officer has held Mr. Kausar Hussain Ranges Forest Officer directly responsible for charging journey for longer route. Mr. Baloach has been only held responsible for not exercising proper supervisory control. We believe that this finding is partly correct. However, we are of the opinion and it was a feeling of all the parties at the bar that this charge was very minor and indeed very secondary in gravity.

14. We have thoroughly discussed point one and point two and now we come to the third point for determination i.e. quantum of punishment. For deciding a case of this nature the quantum of punishment will be determined by earlier two points it is settled law that the punishment should be in consonance with the amount of the guilt proved. Now that we have critically examined this case for point one and point two we reach a conclusion that the quantum of punishment i.e. the punishment of dismissal awarded to appellant does not conform to the principles of natural justice. We have been able to prove only one major charge i.e. charge No.7 of writing an Angry Note and some two or more charges which in our opinion cannot be proved as 'serious' or 'grave', we, therefore, hold that the penalty inflicted on the appellant is totally disproportionate with the amount of guilt committed and proved and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. We are, therefore, inclined to suggest a reduction in rank of the accused official

15. Our attention has now been drawn by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General to the fact that a direct result recruit (Divisional Forest Officer Grade‑18) cannot be reduced a rank and to an office on which he has never worked before but we have not been shown any case law. We have tried ourselves to lay our hands on case law or a decision/authority of Supreme Court of Pakistan but we have failed to find one and as such we shall have to rely upon the existing law and make our own judgment. In order to do so we shall refer to clause (17) of Sind Civil Servant Act of 1973 which reads as Efficiency and Discipline‑‑a Civil Servant shall be liable to prescribed disciplinary action and penalties in accordance with the prescribed procedure." We do not find any specific clause in this entire law (Act or rules made thereunder) to bar the reduction of rank of an officer by way of punishment or by disciplinary measure.

16. If we read clause (4) of the Sind Civil Servant (E & D) Rules of 1973 (as contemplated in clause (17) of the Act) this clause speaks of minor and major penalties and clause (4‑A) speaks of the procedure of proceeding against the Civil Servant under the aforesaid rules and the action is to be taken in accordance with rule 5 which gives the enquiry procedure.

17. So to summarise, if we read rules 4 and 4‑A of the penalties and rule 5 of the enquiry procedure of the Sind Civil Servant Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1973 in conjunction with clause (17) of Sind Civil Servant Act of 1973, then it would become clear that "any officer could be properly proceeded with and reduced in rank in the existing heirarchy of cadres by way of punishment in accordance with law. This is particularly so when there is no specific clause provided contrary to this fact in Sind Civil Servant Act of 1973, and that there is no Supreme Court case law specifically quoted/cited against to bar the reduction in rank of a direct recruit under provisions of Act of 1973 and rules made thereunder with an umbrella of Article 240 of the Constitution of 1973.

18. Keeping in view all the three points for determination set out as above and elaborately discussed in paras 11, 12 and 13 of this decision and further understanding of clause 17 of the Sind Civil Servant Act of 1973 read with Rules 4, 4‑A & 5 of the Sind Civil Servant (E & D) Rules of 1973 we arrive at a conclusion and set aside the impugned order of dismissal and substitute the punishment mentioned therein with a reduction in rank of the official to the post of Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer in Grade‑17 for a period of three years from today. This order shall not bar any of his increments on being restored to his original rank after three years. The period from the date of issue of the impugned order shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay till today. This appeal is partly allowed in these terms with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly. A.A. /135/ SR. S Appeal partly allowed.