1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Accounts Officer, Rural Development Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi was served with charge-sheet, dated 3rd June, 1986, issued by the respondent No.2. The four charges levelled against her were:- (i) In spite of having been penalized under Rule 5(4) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, by the Competent Authority by awarding `Censure' and `Stoppage of an increment, vide Order No. SOX ( S&GAD)-1-182/77, dated 8-11-1984 you did not show any improvement in your conduct and your performance remained, as usual, unsatisfactory. (ii) You have been availing self-granted leave and attending and leaving the office at your free will without obtaining prior permission and not observing office timings properly, and thus violating the office discipline. (iii) You, despite submission of application for grant of casual leave for 3-3-1985, 21-3-1985, 17-6-1985, 25-6-1985, 30-7-1985 and 31-2-1985, intentionally signed the attendance register on these dates and subsequently marked the same as casual leave. (iv) You, with the intention to avail of casual leave unlawfully over and above the entitlement, mutilated the attendance register, which remained all along in your custody, for the months of March to November, 1985, specially its Columns Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to manoeuvre the entitlement of casual leave in your favor by cutting, overwriting and leaving certain columns blank. Thus you availed 39 days casual leave during the calendar year 1985, i.e. 14 (fourteen) days in excess of your entitlement." The allegations were termed as "misconduct" and "dereliction of duty" and the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why action as proposed in the charge-sheet should not be taken against her. She submitted her reply denying the charges. Whereafter Mr. Haroon Siddique, Director (Enquiries), Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Wing, Karachi was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the case. On denial of the allegations by the appellant, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and after having appraised the evidence vis-a-vis the allegations levelled against the appellant, arrived at the finding that the appellant was not guilty. Consequently, he recommended appellant's exoneration from all the charges. But the respondent No.2 issued final show-cause notice, dated 3rd August, 1987, holding the appellant guilty of charges levelled against her and called upon the appellant to appear in person before him. On 13th September, 1987 he passed the impugned order as Authorised Officer and imposed minor penalty of "stoppage of two annual increments" upon the appellant. The appellant preferred the departmental appeal but the same was rejected. The Advocate for the appellant argued that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant from all the four charges. After having analysed each charge in detail, he found the appellant `not guilty'. He further argued that the impugned orders passed by the Authorised Officer/respondent No.2, one imposing minor penalty of `stoppage of two annual increments' and other of issuing `Warning', were not at all justified. He added that without any reason or counter-appraisal of the evidence material on record the respondent No.2 had issued the final show-cause notice dated 3-8-1987. This was contrary to the principles of natural justice, fairplay, and the letter and spirit of the rules and the enunciations of the law, laid down by the superior Courts in Pakistan. He concluded his arguments by saying that the appellant was innocent and blameless in the matter. In this regard he relied upon the facts contained in the Enquiry Officer's report. He requested that the impugned orders being factually incorrect and legally infirm be set aside. Mr. Salman Ansari, Government Counsel stated that the appellant had actually mutilated the record which showed `misconduct' on her part. We have considered the arguments advanced by both the Advocates and perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated Mrs. Malika Jabeen from all the four charges levelled against her. But in the final show-cause notice, dated 3rd August, 1987 and the impugned order dated 13-9-1987, the Authorised Officer/respondent No.2 did not give any reason (s) for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In case he was not satisfied with his findings, he should have appraised the record and given reasons for his dissatisfaction. In view of the above reasons the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./249/Sr.S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.