2026 PLP 1003 (SCMR)

AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.

Through instant petition for leave to appeal, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench), whereby, the Civil Revision Application No. S-42/2011 was dimissed.

2. Briefly, the facts, as stated in the impugned judgment, passed by the Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction bearing No. 145/1998 against the petitioners and three others alleging that he was carrier of Flour Mill owners of Sukkur Division to transport wheat stock from Port Qasim, Karachi to their Flour Mills at Sukkur on pre-paid challan. It was alleged that the respondent was only under obligation to provide transportation facilities loading the imported wheat stock and bilties while the petitioners/ Food Department were responsible to receive the delivery of bilties of wheat stock from Port Qasim Authority at Karachi and loaded the respondent's trucks, so also they were under obligation to check the bilty and weight certificates and tally the cards and other documents relating to dispatched wheat from Government Accounts at Port Qasim, Karachi. It was also alleged that during the period from 1997 to 1998, the respondent provided empty trucks for loading of wheat from Port Qasim, Karachi. As per the certificates issued, the respondent lifted the same which was reconciled by the recipients and ended at Sukkur satisfactorily, however, the petitioners issued Show-Cause Notices dated 04.08.1998 and 30.09.1998 to respondent levelling the allegation that he had misappropriated 1020 bags of wheat loaded on trucks. The respondent replied to the first Show-Cause Notice and cleared his position, however, a second Show-Cause Notice was issued to him malafidely by petitioner No.1. It was claimed by the respondent that 1020 wheat bags were never handed over to him yet the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were trying to shift their responsibility to respondent to save their officials who had misappropriated the aforesaid bags of wheat which fact was evident from the letters dated 05.08.1998, 01.08.1998 and 13.07.1998 hence the cause of action accrued to the respondent who filed a suit before the Trial Court. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent vide Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2009 and 26.11.2009, respectively. Against the judgment, the petitioners preferred Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2010 which was heard and partly allowed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Sukkur vide Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2010 and 27.11.2010 by setting-aside the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court except with regard to findings as to the issuance of Show-Cause Notices to the extent of saving the skin of officials. It was against the judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court that the Civil Revision Application was preferred by the Petitioners in the High Court which dismissed the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by such decision have filed instant civil petition for leave to appeal.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the petitioners has argued that the impugned order passed by the Honourable single judge of Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench) is contrary to law and facts on record as it has failed to consider that issuance of Show-Cause Notice is a basic requirement of Natural Justice as well as law of the land, hence it was rightly issued and cannot be declared null and void, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. According to the learned Additional AG, it is a settled principle of law that one cannot be condemned unheard, hence, Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent to explain his position. It has been contended that misappropriation of 1020 wheat bags were made by the respondent, and he was guilty of breach of trust, hence before taking any adverse action against him, the legal formalities were required to be observed as per law. Learned Additional AG has argued that issuance of Show-Cause Notices cannot be declared null and void as they were not issued as a penalty but as a chance for the respondent to explain his position and produce evidence in support of his defense and if action would have been taken against the respondent without issuing the Show-Cause Notices then it must have been treated as a flagrant disregard to Natural Justice. He has further argued that it was a matter of termination of contract by passing order to black list the respondent, hence issuance of Show-Cause Notice was necessary and most essential to fulfill the requirements of rules.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioners have misconceived the nature of proceedings and wrongfully issued Show-Cause Notice to the respondent who is not an employee/ approved Government Transport Contractor. He further contended that the allegations of misappropriation (if any) require investigation and not Show-Cause Notice, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly initiated proceedings against the respondent. Learned counsel argues that it is malafide on the part of petitioners for not initiating any criminal or civil proceedings for recovery of the misappropriated 1020 wheat bags against the officials of Food Department whose responsibility was to supervise the lifting and delivery of wheat bags to the Flour Mills at Sukkur. Learned counsel for the respondent further argues that the petitioner department issued an illegal Show-Cause Notices to pressurize the respondent, and to drag him into frivolous litigation. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the High Court has rightly raised the question that is as to how the Civil Revision is maintainable as the Judgment/Decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside and how the same can be impugned in Civil Revision by the petitioner. He further contended that there is no valid ground or any question of law of public importance involved in instant matter, and the instant C.P.L.A. has been filed in order to save the real culprits by shifting the burden and responsibility upon the respondent who has no privity of contract with the petitioners. It has been prayed that instant C.P.L.A. being devoid of any merits may be dismissed in limini.

5. We have heard the learned Additional AG representing the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, perused the record and have also gone through the judgments of the Courts below and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, with their assistance.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent was a private contractor of Flour Mills, whereas, in respect to 1020 wheat bags, subject matter of instant case, he was nominated by Roller Flour Mills, Sukkur to transport the imported wheat stock from Port Qasim to their Flour Mill at Sukkur on the basis of pre-paid challan. The respondent was issued a letter dated 04.09.1998 by the District Food Controller Sukkur titled as "MISSING OF 1020 BAGS OF IMPORTED WHEAT", wherein it was alleged that as per report by ward rationing officer Sukkur who was deputed for reconciliation of dispatches of imported wheat from Port Qasim Karachi to Sukkur, the quantity of 1020 bags transported in the three trucks owned by the respondent against three bilties each dated 26.11.1997 was found missing. therefore respondent was directed to locate or find out the above missing wheat bags, failing which it will be presumed that respondent has misappropriated the government wheat and the cost of such wheat will be deducted from the pending bills of Flour Mills. The aforesaid letter was duly responded by the respondent vide letter dated 17.08.1998 wherein all the allegations as contained in letter dated 04.08.1998 were vehemently denied. It was stated in the letter that respondent was nominated by Roller Flour Mills, Sukkur to transport the imported wheat stock from Port Qasim Karachi to their Flour Mill at Sukkur on the basis of pre-paid challans, whereas the respondent's responsibility was only to provide empty trucks for loading of wheat stock against bilties issued to this effect and to deliver the same to the Flour Mills. It was further stated that authorized officers of the Food Department were posted at the Port who were responsible to receive the delivery of the wheat stock from Port Qasim Authorities Karachi and to get the trucks loaded in their presence and thereafter checking the weight and quantity, issue a certificate to this effect. It has been further stated in the reply submitted by the respondent that the said quantity of wheat was duly delivered to the Flour Mill at Sukkur, whereafter certificate was issued by the Port Qasim Authorities for the quantity of wheat stock lifted by the respondent from Port Qasim to be delivered to Flour Mill Sukkur, which was reconciled by the recipient at Flour Mill, Sukkur and the same was found correct. Besides having responded to the allegations levelled in the letter issued by the Food Department, the respondent categorically denied any direct relationship or agreement with the Food Department as according to respondent, he was not an approved Government Transport Contractor, hence not authorized to get delivery of the wheat stock directly from Port Qasim Karachi. It will not be out of place to observe that on 05.08.1998 the Food Department issued a letter to Food Inspector namely Mr. Muhammad Yahya and supervisor namely Ghulam Hussain Kalwar, containing the similar allegations, however, no document has been placed on record to show as to what action has been taken against such officials of the Food Department in view of the same set of allegations as levelled against the respondent.

7. The Food Department however, did not accept the explanation furnished by the respondent in his letter dated 17.08.1998 and issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 30.09.1998, whereby, the respondent was called upon to explain the non-delivery of 1020 bags of imported wheat lifted by him as representative of Flour Mills from Port Qasim Karachi for delivery to Sukkur during the period 1996-97, which as per contents of Show-Cause Notice amounted to misappropriation of wheat stock, hence caused financial loss to the Government in the sum of Rupees 9,18,000/-. The respondent was further threatened for initiation of legal action for misappropriation of wheat stock and also Blacklisting for further work in the Food Department. The respondent being aggrieved of such proceedings by the Food Department, filed a FC Suit No. 132 of 2006 (old FC Suit No. 145 of 1998) in the court of IInd senior Civil Judge, Sukkur with the following prayer; "

17. It is therefore, prayed that this Honourable court may be pleased to: A) To declare that the defendants 2 and 3 are not legally entitled to issue Show-Cause Notices dated 04.08.1998 and 30.09.1998 to plaintiff nor they can take any action against him and the so called Show-Cause Notices are only to save the skin of defendants 4 and 5 against when the defendants 2 and 3 have issues letters. B) To declare that the actions of the defendants 2 and 3 are based on mala fide and of no legal effect. C) To restrain the defendants 2 and 3 to take any adverse action action plaintiff themselves through their servants, agents or any other agency till final disposal of the suit. D) Costs of the suit. E) Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case."

8. The FC Suit No. 132 of 2006 (old FC Suit No. 145 of 1998) filed by the respondent was decreed in his favour vide Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 respectively by holding that plaintiff (respondent herein) is not liable for misappropriation of 1020 bags of wheat loaded in trucks as per enquiry report, therefore, issuance of Show-Cause Notices to a person who is not their subordinate is without legal justification. The aforesaid Judgment and Decree was assailed by the petitioners by filing an Appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2010 before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sukkur, who vide Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2010 and 27.11.2010 respectively set aside the same except with regard to finding as to issuance of Show-Cause Notice, and saving that extent, the impugned Judgment and Decree was reversed, and the respondent's suit with regard to other prayers was dismissed. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree in Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2010 challenged the same before High Court of Sindh (Sukkur Bench) in Civil Revision No. S-42 of 2011, however, vide impugned order dated 10.10.2022, the Civil Revision Application was dismissed in the following terms; "

4. At the very outset, Learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh failed to satisfy the court as to maintainability of the instant Civil Revision Application, which has been preferred against the findings of the Appellate Court, wherein the Judgment and Decreeof the trial court has been set-aside. The learned AAG Sindh contends that since the findings of the learned Appellate Court with regard to issuance of Show-Cause Notice is against the law, instant Civil Revision Application has been preferred. The relevant prayer clause (A) relating to Show-Cause Notice reads as under:- "To declare that the defendants 2 and 3 are not legally entitled to issue Show-Cause Notices dated 04.08.1998 and 30.09.1998 to plaintiff nor they can take any action against him and the so called Show-Cause Notices are only to save the skin of defendants 4 and 5 against when the defendants 2 and 3 have issues letters. (Emphasis supplied)

5. It appears that learned Appellate Court has not agreed to the findings of the trial Court regarding the purpose of issuance of Show-Cause Notice and saving the skin of the defendants 4 and

5. It may be observed that it is a matter of record that the applicants have admittedly not initiated any proceedings Civil or Criminal for recovery of the amount of aforesaid 1020 bags of wheat and/or for committing any breach of trust, now the purpose of issuance of Show-Cause Notice either is illegal or to save the skin of official defendants 4 and 5 is nothing but mere an academic discussion. Even otherwise, the respondents have failed to produce any evidence that the purpose of issuance of aforesaid Show-Cause Notice was including one that to save the skin of the official defendants. It is a matter of record that respondent in whose favour the Judgment and Decree was passed by the trial Court and the same was set aside by the Appellate Court has not approached this Court for setting-aside the judgment of the Appellate Court, hence, the instant Civil Revision. Application being devoid of merits is dismissed accordingly, with no other as to costs."

9. We have minutely examined the facts of the instant case and have also gone through the judgment passed by the courts below on the issues involved in the instant matter. Before we proceed to dilate upon the legality or otherwise of the Judgment(s) and Decree(s) passed by the learned IInd senior civil judge, Sukkur, in FC Suit No 132 of 2006 (old FC Suit No. 145 of 1998), IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sukkur, in Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2010 as well as the order passed by Single Judge of High Court of Sindh (Sukkur Bench) Civil Revision No.S.42/2011, we will examine the legality of the proceedings initiated by the Food Department by issuance of letter dated 04.08.1998 followed by a Show-Cause Notice dated 30.09.1998 available at page 81 and page 88 of the paper book respectively. From perusal of the contents of the aforementioned documents, it has been observed that no reference to any Law or Rule has been made under which such proceedings were initiated against the respondent who is admittedly a private transport contractor of the Flour Mills at Sukkur, responsible for lifting the imported wheat stock from Port Qasim Karachi and to be delivered to the Flour Mills as their representative during 1996-1997. There is no allegation with regard to lifting of the imported wheat stock from port Qasim Karachi, however the allegation is restricted to non-delivery of 1020 bags of imported wheat bags to the Flour Mills at Sukkur. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Flour Mill at Sukkur has filed any complaint before any forum with regard to non-delivery of the imported wheat bags, which as per allegation, were misappropriated by the respondent, nor the petitioner could establish any financial loss to the Government amounting to Rupees 9,18,000/- for the reason that the wheat bags were allowed to be lifted on submission of pre-paid challans by the Flour Mills before the relevant authority against the bilties issued by the Food Department to this effect. Besides above legal defects in the proceedings initiated by the Food Department, it has been observed that proper explanation was furnished by the respondent in response to the letter dated 04.08.1998 followed by a Show-Cause Notice dated 30.09.1998, whereas, the respondent successfully discharged the onus to disprove the allegations by producing oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, who after examining pleadings, evidence produced by both the parties, and framing of the issues relating to the subject controversy, Decreed the suit of the respondent on merits as well as on legal issues relating to issuance of Show-Cause Notice through a well-reasoned Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 respectively. The said Judgment and Decree passed by the learned IInd senior Civil judge was maintained to the extent of illegality of the Show-Cause Notice, however the decision on the merits of the case, to the extent of recovery of the alleged 1020 imported wheat bags was left open for adjudication if any. It will not be out of place to observe that No suit or proceedings whatsoever, have been initiated by the Food Department for the recovery of missing 1020 imported wheat bags or alleged financial loss amounting to Rupees 9,18,000/- against the respondent or the official of the Food Department who were admittedly issued Show-Cause Notices on the same set of allegations.

10. In view of herein above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single judge Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench) has rightly dismissed the Civil Revision No. S-42 of 2011 vide impugned order dated 10.10.2022, which does not suffer from any error or illegality, therefore, does not require any interference by this court. Accordingly, instant civil petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused vide our short order dated 26.12.2025 and above are the reasons for such short order. MH/P-1/SC Petition dismissed.