' JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN)---This appeal is directed against the original order dated 15-6-1999 issued by the Registrar, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro in pursuance of the Syndicate's Resolution dated 5-6-1999 awarding major penalty of 'Reversion' to the appellant.
2. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of appeal are that appellant initially joined the University as Lecturer (B-17). Later on, he was appointed as Assistant Professor (B-18) in the year, 1984 and was allowed moveover (B-19) in the year, 1994. During the year 1996, appellant was examiner of 6th Term of third year's batch in the subject of Architecture and Town Planning and checked copies of several students which includes the copy of one Azam Ali Memon bearing Roll No.X292CE157 who moved an application that on account of his refusal to pay illegal gratification he was victimized by the appellant and declared failed. A preliminary enquiry committee comprising of M/s. Akhtar K. Bhatti, Mirchand Oad Engineers and Naim Ifran was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The Committee assessed the paper and came to the conclusion that student Azam Ali Memon was entitled for nineteen (19) more marks. On the basis of such report, appellant was served with a show-cause notice dated 29-4-1997 issued by the Respondent No.2, which the appellant replied and while explaining his position he denied the allegation vehemently. Mr. Justice M. L. Shahani (as he then was) was nominated as Enquiry Officer who conducted full-fledged regular enquiry and submitted report that the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice were established against the appellant. Appellant was then served with a charge-sheet dated 22-6-1998, which too he replied and reiterated his earlier stand, Ultimately, vide order dated 15-6-1999 appellant was awarded major penalty of Reversion from B-18 to B-17.
Feeling dissatisfied, he A preferred review petition to the Syndicate of the University and simultaneously preferred departmental appeal to the Chancellor/Governor of Sindh through T.C.S. Appellant's review petition, however, through letter dated 6-7-1999 was disposed of as being not maintainable. Thereafter, he submitted departmental appeal to the Chancellor on 4-8-1999, and on getting no response appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through the instant appeal.
3. In support of appeal, learned counsel while relying on various reported cases argued that matter at length and also submitted written arguments. He raised several grounds challenging the validity and legality of the impugned order. He mainly contended that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with prescribed procedure laid down in the University of Sindh Employees (E&D) Rules, 1961, therefore, whole proceedings being illegal and void cannot be made the basis for awarding major penalty. He submitted that the departmental proceedings were initiated before the issuance of the charge-sheet, which was even not accompanied by the statement of allegation. That neither the charge was framed properly and specifically nor any proper opportunity was afforded to the appellant to defend himself against the action proposed and that the copy of the inquiry report was also not supplied to the appellant, which caused serious prejudice to him in defending his cause. Lastly, he stated that Respondent No.2 acted in dual capacity of Authorized Officer and Authority, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and may be set aside. He relied upon i) PLD 1969 Peshawar-147, (ii) PLD 1954-Lahore 299, (iii) PLD 1981-SC 176, (iv) PLJ 1983 Tr.C. (Service) -6, (v) 1983 PLC (C.S.) 266, (vi) 1983 PLC (C.S.) 473 (vii) 1987 PLC (C.S.) 266, (viii) 1987 PLC (C.S) 854, (ix) 1988 PLC (C.S.) 451, and (x) 1992 PLC (C.S.) 1000. He also pointed out that under the law reversion to lower post must be for specific period but in the case of the appellant no time period has been specified.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents while defending the impugned order argued that full, fair and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellant before taking punitive action against him. The regular enquiry was conducted by the then sitting Judge to the Honourable High Court, all the witnesses were examined in presence of the appellant and were cross- examined by him. He submitted that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a proper legal manner and that copy of the enquiry report was also supplied to the appellant. The penalty awarded to the appellant being just, legal and proper calls for no interference and may be maintained. Further, he contended that appeal is time-barred.
5. We have considered the above submission, perused the material placed on the record, carefully gone through the case-law referred to the learned counsel for the appellant as also the written submission filed before us. Contention that the instant appeal is time-barred, has no force. Perusal of the record reveals that original impugned order dated 15-6-1999 was served upon appellant on 27-6-1999 and on the same day he preferred review petition to the Syndicate while on 22-7-1999 he sent departmental appeal to the Chancellor/Governor of Sindh through T.C.S. His review petition was disposed off being not maintainable. Thereafter, he personally submitted the copy of his departmental appeal at the gate of Governor's House on 4-8-1999. He filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 16-10-1999, which for all purposes is well within time.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly attacked the impugned order on the ground that the enquiry proceedings against the appellant were not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and law. It will be pertinent to reproduce the show-cause notice dated 29-4-1997, which reads as under- "The office is in receipt of an application of the student having ID No.X292CE157 dated 24-2-1997 stating therein that he has been victimized in the examination of subject .Of Architecture and Town Planning regular examination 6th Term held oft 2-11-1996, resulting of his failure and has requested for checking and re-assessm ent of his answer copy and pray for justice. He has further stated that this all has happened to him as he refused to give you any financial advantage. He has cited the cases of favouritism to some of the students of the same examination who have paid to you a handsome amount.
' On receiving such application, I got the answer copy of the above student re-assessed by the Committee of the three members of the faculty, who gave their considered opinion that the student deserves 19 (nineteen) marks plus.
' When you were called in the presence of Chairman and Additional Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department to explain the anomaly, you consented for increase of only 02 (two) marks.
' On the verification of answer copies of the above subject. I found that 09 answer copies have been tampered with while going through the answer copies verified by me minutely. I noticed that original stitching and original pins have been tampered with. I also further noticed that by way of manipulation, you have removed the original pages from 03 (three) to 18 (eighteen) and have replaced the same by leaving only original cover of the same.
' It is a general practice that in original answer copy, the blank as well as left out spaces is to be crossed by the invigilators while dispatching the same to the Controller of Examinations. In the above-cited case, left out space has been crossed with red ink same as that you have used for assessm ent of answer copies; and thus thereby you have committed an act of manipulation.
' On the examination of answer copy bearing ID No.X292CE85 which has been referred in the application of the aggrieved student, it has been found that original answer copy, which have been removed, tampered with and replaced as such by you, has been assessed and 12 marks have been credited to this student. It will not be out of place to mention that the same student had secured ZERO marks in four subjects, whereas 03 (three) marks in one subject only.
' From the above said acts of tampering with answer copies and manipulation, which are detrimental to the interest of the University, you have committed an act of MISCONDUCT.
' You are, therefore, called upon to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you and that why the major penalty may not be imposed upon you.
' Your explanation should reach in this office within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of this notice."
' There is no denial of the fact that statement of allegation was not accompanied with the above said show-cause notice. However, the purpose of the statement of allegations is to elaborate and clarify the charges made against the civil servant concerned so that he should have clear notice of the same for preparing his defence. The simple perusal of the above show cause-notice clearly reveals that the charges detailed therein are fairly exhaustive and needed no further elaboration.
Accordingly no prejudice, seemed to have been caused to the appellant in his defence due to non- supply of the separate statement of allegations to him. Reference is invited to the case of Syed Zafar Ali Askari v. Secretary to Government of Sindh, Karachi and another, 1987-PLC (C.S) 854 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. The next contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have also no force. As a matter of fact, the charges levelled against the appellant were got probed by the University administration through an impartial Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh namely Mr. M.L.
Shahani. During enquiry proceedings six witnesses were examined in presence of the appellant namely, Dr. A.R. Rehman, Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Azam Ali. Memon a student whose complaint was the basis of show-cause notice, Professor Akhtar Khalid Bhatti, Mr. Abu Bakar Memon, Controller of Examination. Mr. Ali Bux, Chairman, Civil Engineering Department and Mr. Khatri, the Vice-Chairman.
The appellant also examined himself so also filed additional statement, however, he did not produce any defence witness. As per enquiry report all the said witnesses fully supported the allegations against the appellant. They were also cross-examined by the appellant. It is thus clear that full, fair, proper and reasonable opportunity was provided to the appellant to defend himself but it was his hard luck that despite all his possible efforts he failed to rebut the allegations and to prove himself as innocent. There is nothing on the record to indicate even remotely that any of the said witnesses was on inimical terms with the appellant. The appellant though has alleged his personal enmity with Dr. A.R. Rehman, the then Vice-Chancellor of the University by levelling some serious type of allegations but the same have no relevancy so far instant appeal is concerned. The whole proceedings were initiated on the complaint of one student namely Azam Ali Memon, which during preliminary enquiry as well as during regular enquiry was proved as correct.
8. The other contention that copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the appellant appears to be an afterthought. Neither in reply to the charge-sheet nor in departmental appeal/review petition nor even in the memo. Of appeal, the appellant has stated anywhere that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him. However, for the first time during the course of arguments, the plea of non-supply of enquiry report has been raised. It is pertinent to point out that appellant himself has filed the copy of the said enquiry report along with -memo. Of appeal.
9. The contention that Respondent. No.2 had acted in dual capacity is also devoid of force. The show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by Respondent No.2 in the capacity of Authorized Officer. After receipt of the reply of the show-cause notice and the enquiry report, the Authorized Officer issued charge-sheet to the appellant (which ink fact was a final show-cause notice) and after receipt of reply of the appellant, the Respondent, No.2 forwarded the case to the Authority viz. The Syndicate in the instant case and the Syndicate then through its resolution No.72.4(a) dated 5- 6-1999 imposed major penalty of 'Reversion' to the appellant which was communicated to him through order impugned herein by the Registrar of the University.
10. The appellant was proceeded with departmentally on the complaint of one student. The matter was thoroughly enquired by the independeht and impartial judicial officer. The appellant has not attributed any, or personal grudge either to the complainant or the Inquiry Officer. BAs per enquiry report, there was circumstantial evidence as only appellant could do it as only he received papers and deposited them. He has not denied that he has not checked these papers. Such allegations were levelled against appellant and have been corroborated by the evidence. Equally it is a sad day to hold that the professor of a University is guilty of favouritism and showing partiality. A teacher has more responsibility than a father. If a teacher shows partiality in judging the work of their students and that too with a jaundiced eye, such act cannot be condoned.
11. In view of scrutiny of the record it stands established that fair chance/opportunity to defend himself was given to the appellant during the enquiry proceedings which proceedings he joined and cross-examined the witnesses and no prejudice in any manner was caused to him. All the formalities relating to the inquiry proceedings were complied with in a perfectly valid and legal manner associating the appellant with' it and providing him full chance to offer his defence. We do not find any legal infirmity as regards the disciplinary procedure is concerned. The department has already taken a very lenient view, he was imposed a lesser penalty of reversion.
12. Contention that appellant's reversion from B-19 to B-17 as against the rules, has no force.
Appellant in fact was promoted from B-17 to B-18, he was, however, allowed move-over to B-19 on reaching the maximum of his substantive scale. Moveover from one scale to another is not tantamount to promotion indeed, it is only awarded to an incumbent after reaching the maximum of his substantive scale. However, punishment of reversion to a lower stage without specifying the period of punishment appears to be violative of F.R. 29 which reads as under: "F.R.
29. If a Government servant is, on account of misconduct or inefficiency, reduced to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in his time scale, the Authority ordering such reduction shall state that period for which it shall be effective and whether, on restoration, it shall operate to postpone future increments and if so, to what extent."
' Accordingly, while maintaining the impugned order dated 15-6-1999, we are inclined to modify the same by restricting the penalty of reversion upon the appellant for a period of four years, without cumulative effect. With the above modification, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. Announced in open Court.