2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Laws Cited

Representation

• Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Appellant.
• Muhammad Moosa Leghari for Respondents.
• Date of hearing: 5th May, 2000.
• The Advocate of the appellant while arguing the case assailed the penalty imposed upon the appellant as illegal and beyond jurisdiction and that the charge‑sheet issued by the Authorised Officer who was himself accused in the present appeal was not maintainable. Besides‑the averments as raised in the appeal have also been highlighted pointing out the technical deficiencies including that as F.I.R. was also lodged against the appellant was still pending. That according to the appellant no enquiry was held but if any was held he was not allowed to participate or cross‑examine the witnesses. That the final show‑cause notice was issued after three years by the Managing Director as Authorised Officer. That the copy of Enquiry Report was not supplied. That the final show‑cause notice contained more details, than the charge‑sheet. Personal hearing was not given. And that approval of the Authority was not obtained while issuing the dismissal order, dated 5‑6‑1994. That he was rightly reinstated by the Chairman, SASO and that no further order could be passed, thereafter on the point of locus poenitentiae and in the light of following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court:‑‑
• Muhammad Moosa Leghari, Advocate of the SASO pointed out that in this case when the appellant was dismissed from service all the formalities were completed. The charge‑sheet was issued to him by the Authorised Officer. However, on the basis of reply of the appellant it was construed that the Authorised Officer was himself involved in the said act of defalcation whereupon the matter was enquired into by a Board of Enquiry wherein the appellant was fully associated as is evident from the report of the Enquiry Officers which fully associate the appellant and consequent upon the said enquiry it transpired that the present appellant, Mr. Muhammad Bachal Dharejo the then DASD, SASO, Khairpur and Mr. K.B. Sial, Deputy Director, SASO, Sukkur were all responsible for the said act of defalcation; whereupon different penalties were imposed upon these three officers vide order, issued by the Managing Director, SASO and Authorised Officer because the senior most, officer involved in the said matter was of the status of Deputy Director, SASO (BS‑18). That the Authority competent in this respect was Board of Directors and the matter was decided by the said Authority whereupon the order of dismissal was issued. Thus the proceedings against the accused were finally concluded on 5‑6‑1994 and that the appellant did not move any Competent Authority/Tribunal but simply went to the Chairman, SASO and got his re‑instatement in 1998. Thus he was illegally and mala fidely re‑instated in service. However, the said order of the Chairman, SASO, was reviewed by the Board who had the jurisdiction to do so and accordingly the order of the penalty i.e., dismissal from service was maintained and the order of re‑instatement was withdrawn. Thus the respondents were fully competent to take the lawful actions by way of withdrawing a wrong order, which did not attract the rule of locus poenitentiae as the powers of SASO Board were illegally taken over by the then Chairman and exercised against the interest of the Board. Thus a wrong had been rectified and no wrong had been committed. Issuance of any show cause at that stage was, as such, not required. Thus the appeal of the appellant was time‑barred and that no appeal was liable to the Tribunal at this stage. Therefore, he requested that the prayer of the appellant may be dismissed and costs be awarded to the respondents for these proceedings.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree