' NUR AHMAD SHAH (MEMBER-I)---This is an appeal under section 4 Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973.
The appellant, a Junior Clerk in the office of the Executive District Officer (EDO) Revenue, Dadu was served with a show-cause notice on 28-12-2001, accusing him of the several acts of forgery and embezelment. He denied the allegations. However, it is stated in the appeal, without a regular enquiry, the appellant was dismissed from service on 2-7-2002. He was also asked to pay the defalcated amount of Rs.237,174. He went in appeal before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue who advised him to approach the proper forum which in his case was the Service and General Administration Department. Instead, the appellant filed the instant appeal. In their written statements, the respondents have reiterated the allegations of frauds and forgeries against the appellant. The respondent No.2 states that the allegations were probed into by the then Additional District Magistrate Kotri, that the appellant, despite summons, did not appear to face the enquiry and he went into hiding due to a registration of case against him with Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE), Dadu: and that though he was given a chance of personal hearing by the Authority, he failed to avail it of, and instead, requested to be excused.
2. Heard Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh for appellant and A.A.-G Mrs. Tabassum Ghazanfar, for the respondents. Persued the record.
3. The appellant's Counsel argues that the appellant has been awarded a major penalty without a regular inquiry and suggests that the case be remanded for fresh inquiry. The A.A.-G. Supports the impugned punishment which she contends was imposed on him after the inquiry by the Additional District Magistrate, Kotri.
4. While conducting the audit of the account of the then office of Deputy Commissioner, Dadu the auditors detected the unaccounted for amount of Rs.80,967 allegedly claimed as POL charges. The matter was assigned to the then Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Kotri for inquiry. The Inquiry Officer found the misappropriated amount to the tune of Rs.217,685 instead of Rs.80,967.
' He examined several witnesses and recorded their statements. The appellant, too, was summoned by the Inquiry Officer but he absconded along with the relevant record and was, therefore, evading other inquiries as well.
5. The Inquiry Officer, in his findings, found convincing evidence for the appellant's involvement and, consequently, named him, as the main accused. The Inquiry Officer suggested the ACE Proceedings to be launched against him. The appellant was, accordingly, issued a show-cause notice on 28-12-2001, and a Final show-cause notice on 9-4-2002. He submitted his reply to both the notices and denied the allegations.
6. The appellant counsel's only plea is that the impugned punishment was awarded without a regular inquiry. The inquiry was, in fact, held by the then ADM Kotri. He summoned the appellant but the latter remained untraced for fear of other investigations against him.
7. In his replies to the show-cause notices, the appellant did not deny any of the several acts of forgeries and misappropriations he was charged with. Nor his own involvement. He merely stated that these transactions took place with the approval of the then Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dadu Mr. Riaz Ahmed Massan. It is an established principle of law that in the case of more than on culprit involved in a malfeasance they are severally and jointly liable for action. Besides it, there was any truth in the appellant's assertion, the best course for him was to have appeared before the Inquiry Officer and clarified his position. The fact that he chose to absent himself from inquiry proceedings despite repeated summons gives a sufficient ground for an adverse inference against the appellant.
8. Even before the Tribunal, the appellant has not effectively denied the allegations. His counsel, rather than assailing the impugned action on merit, has laid stress only on the absence of a regular inquiry which he contends became mandatory after the rebuttal of allegations by the appellant in response to the show-cause notices. The appellant's Counsel requests the matter to be remanded.
9. The nature of allegations was such that they could have been proved or disproved on the basis of a documentary evidence in the absence of a regular inquiry, Particularly when the preliminary inquiry was held by an officer of the rank of Additional District Magistrate. The Inquiry Officer, as already stated, came to the conclusion that the appellant was the main culprit and he recommended his prosecution. The Inquiry Officer was based in Kotri and the appellant was working in the DC Office, Dadu and the former had, thus, no reason of against him. Nor can there be any doubt about the objectivity or impartiality of the inquiry. The appellant's plea that non-holding of a regular inquiry could have caused him prejudice sounds untenable. There is, thus, no justification for remanding the matter for a fresh inquiry.
10. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs.