1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

B.I.S.E. Hyderabad. Subject:‑ Show‑cause notice You are appointed as a Store Officer in General Stores against the post of the Purchase Officer in Grade‑16 on temporary basis in the scale of Rs.625‑40‑825/50‑1,325 plus allowances as admissible under the ruts on the terms and conditions that in case if your work and/or conduct is not found satisfactory or suitable at any time during the period of service, your services can be terminated without assigning any reason or reasons. That from the very start of your service your work and conduct was not found satisfactory and suitable by every Chairman of the Board and from the month of July, 1977 you always earn an adverse report in your A.C.R. as for your working, conduct efficiency and integrity. (a) that in the year 1977 you earned only four marks in part 1 assessment A and B also earned four marks out of 16 and you were given the remarks by the then Chairman, Mr. Khoja by whom you were appointed and the remarks read as under:‑ "He should see that every thing is tip top in Store. He should work hard and pickup his work." The then Secretary of the Board had given his remarks for the same as under: - "This new officer should work harder. He has good initiative, must create better relation with every body." In the year 1978 you had earned three marks out of 18 marks in part assessment A group and three in B group and in parts II, III, V and over all our work was found to be fair and in the remarks the Secretary of Board had given you remarks as under:‑ "He is well‑behaved and is putting his efforts but he should still work harder' The then Chairman, Mr. Khoja had observed asunder:‑ 'He is well‑behaved young man. He should always attend to his work promptly entrusted to him. He will prove to be good official. "You were served with the adverse remarks in your confidential report. "You were also served with adverse remarks given to you in annual confidential before for the year ending on 31‑12‑1980 and also in the year ending on 31‑12‑1981 which were communicated to you, you also received adverse remarks for the year ending on 31‑12‑1984 which were also served on you and similarly you were given adverse remarks in A.C.R. in the year ending on 31‑12‑1985 and the same were communicated to you and the photostat copies of your A.C.R. earned by you throughout the period of your services are attached for your ready reference and this record clearly shows that your work and conduct throughout the tenure of your service were decreasing instead of improving the same. "You had also created an atmosphere of hatred between various officers of the Board and had created an ugly atmosphere in Board. "You also did not take proper interest in the work. You were always found absent from your table as you usually remained absent fry your table being busy with your private affairs and had been dealing with your private affairs during office hours. That you were found to be a liability on the Board mostly by all the Chairman of the Board and even your appointment was found to the illegal and due to undue favouritism by the then Chairman moreover, the Board has also abolished the post of Purchase Officer against which you were appointed. You are therefore hereby served with a show‑cause notice explain/show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this show‑cause notice that as to why your services should not be terminated. In case of your failure to submit the explanation within the required period then the matter will be decided in your absence according to law." The petitioner defended the charges at the domestic enquiry, however, he was found guilty of misconduct, under the regulations framed under Sindh Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1972, and a penalty was imposed upon him resulting in his reduction to a lower post as Assistant in Grade‑11 and hence this petition. After hearing Mr. G.M. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.M. Hayat Quraishi, learned counsel for the Government of Sindh and going through the record of the case, we find that the petition is devoid of force. It has been urged by Mr. G.M. Saleem, that the petitioner had been initially proceeded against for inefficiency and unsuitability and consequently, a major penalty of reduction to lower post could not have been awarded to him but the argument, in our opinion, is completely misconceived. No doubt, originally the petitioner was proceeded against for unsatisfactory and unsuitable work but such action, as pointed out earlier, was struck down for technical reasons by this Court. Thereafter, as pointed out earlier, the petitioner was given a show‑cause notice levelling various charges against him and an enquiry thereafter appears to have been held against him under the relevant rules where he was found to be guilty by the Enquiry Committee. The contention of the learned counsel that the major penalty of reduction to a lower post could not be awarded to the petitioner is misconceived, ex facie because rule 4(4) of Efficiency and Discipline Regulations, although provided that for inefficiency ordinarily a minor penalty, and for corruption or an subversion a major penalty is to be imposed; but as is evident from the language used in the said rules, the same may not be followed with absolute, rigidity. This is clear by use of the word "ordinarily" which indicates that although under ordinary circumstances a minor penalty is to be imposed for inefficiency but still a major penalty can be imposed if the competent authority, so desires, in view of the circumstances of a particular case. However, the show‑cause notice, which has earlier been reproduced in this judgment, clearly indicates that the same was served upon the petitioner not only on account of his inefficiency but other charges were also levelled against the petitioner for which a major penalty could be awarded to him. We, therefore, find no force in the contention of Mr. G.M. Saleem. The second contention of Mr. G.M. Saleem before us was that the petitioner was not provided with assistance of a counsel by the Enquiry Committee. Mr. G.M. Saleem, has however, failed to refer to any such document from which it can be spelt out that such request had been made by the petitioner but the same was turned down by the said Committee. The learned counsel has also failed to refer to any rule indicating that the Enquiry Committee was under obligation to provide a counsel to the petitioner to assist him at the enquiry. Under the circumstances, the second contention of Mr. G.M. Saleem, must also fail. There is no other ground which has been urged by Mr. G.M. Saleem and we fend no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. We have, therefore, no other option but to dismiss this petition. The parties are left to hear their own costs. H.B.T./S‑951/K Petition dismissed.