1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

From above discussion we are of the view that the Enquiry Officer has come to right conclusion that the charge of appellant's demand of illegal gratification was proved. As regards the second charge it is partially admitted by the appellant. He has admitted that he had called for the explanation of Abdul Latif Assistant of the office of the District Education Officer on his refusal to deliver to him the purchase order of science material placed with the Scientific Store, Sukkur. The appellant's explanation is that he needed the said purchase order as he was verbally asked by the District Education Officer to arrange for the agreement with the contractor who generally did not respond to the letters, issued by the office. Prima facie the above explanation on the appellant's part does not tear any truth. The text of the charge clearly shows that the appellant had mala fide asked Abdul Latif, Assistant to hand over the purchase order of science material to him. This means that he was never required by the District Education Officer to collect the said order from Abdul Latif. It is true that the District Education Officer was not examined in the enquiry. In fact to prove the scone curare was not necessary to examine him. The burden was on the appellant to prove that he was actually directed by the District Education Officer to arrange for the alleged agreement and collect the purchase order from Abdul Latif for that purpose. There is nothing in black and white to show that any such direction was given to the appellant. His own case is that the direction given to him was verbal. But he has not produced any evidence, oral or documentary to prove the direction. On the contrary in his reply to the charge he wonders; "why I was entrusted this task is best known to my boss and the dealing Assistant". In these circumstances his solitary word cannot be accepted as proof that he was required by the District Education Officer not only to arrange for the agreement but also to collect the purchase order from the above Assistant. Consequently we endorse the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the second charge was also proved against the appellant. The third and last charge against the appellant is that he misbehaved with his immediate boss namely the District Education Officer by challenging his authority. In proof of this charge our attention has been drawn to the two letters one written by the District Education Officer to the appellant and second written by the appellant to the said officer in reply. The letter written by the District Education Officer is dated 20‑5‑1985 and it reads as under:‑ "Confidential No. 14390 Dated 20‑5‑1985 The Assistant Accounts Officer, District Education Office, Dadu. Reference: Your No.1 dated 20‑5‑1985. Mr. A. Lateef, Assistant has not yet furnished his first explanation called by the undersigned and you have called another one directly. Please don't harass the poor clerk. He is lo and reliable. He has committed a mistake as he will explain his position and try to rectify it. Please don't create problems in the office. Don't usurp the powers of the undersigned and call explanations from the clerks directly. Sd/‑ Dated: 20‑5‑1985:" In reply to above letter the Appellant's letter which is dated 22‑5‑1985 is in the following words: "To, The District Education Officer, Dadu. Subject;‑ACTUAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE AA.O. IN THE OFFICE OF THE D.E.O. I am highly thankful for your kind instructions received under your Letter No.14390, dated 20‑5‑1985 in which your honour is kind enough to encourage a clerk by disgracing a Commissioned Officer and incharge of the section. It has further been directed that the undersigned has got no power to issue a simple memo to any clerk of this office to get the work done as per rules and regulations. Under the above circumstances your honour is earnestly requested to let me know the actual rights and duties of an AA.O. working in your office, so as to enable him to act accordingly. Thanks. Sd/‑ (HABIBULLAH ABRO) ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE (BOYS) DADU." The contents and authorship of above two letters are not denied. We have considered the said letters carefully. We are of the view that the Ratter written by appellant who was admittedly subordinate to the District Education Officer was rather insolent and as such it amounted to misbehaviour on the part of the appellant. Accordingly we uphold the finding of the Enquiry Officer that F even the third charge stood proved against the appellant. For above reasons we see no merit in the appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./172/Sr.C. Appeal dismissed.