' JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LAGHARI (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal- is directed against the order dated 15-10-1999, passed by District and Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, whereby the appellant with other delinquent officials was dismissed from service for the proved acts of misconduct by District and Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide office order dated 15-10-1999.
2. Briefly stated the allegations of misconduct with which the appellant stood charged are contained in the show-cause notice dated 7-9-1999, which is reproduced hereunder; "Sabir Ali, Peon, ' Court of CJ & FCM Garhi Yasin At present Chowkidar Court of CJ & FCM Lakhi Ghulam Shah.
SUBJECT: SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ' It is brought to the notice of the undersigned that on 3-7-1999 M/s Nisar Ahmed Jakhro Reader and Abdul Fattah Shaikh, Clerk, Court of CJ & FCM Garhi Yasin forged a fictitious release writ to get the accused Saddar released from jail in Case No,9/1994 St. v. Sikandar and others. They gave the release writ to you and you knowing it to be forged, took away and handed over to the Suptt.
Central Prison Sukkur, as a result of which the accused was released. This act on your part tantamount to misconduct, warranting action under Sindh Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.
' You are, therefore, given show-cause notice to explain your position as to why disciplinary action under Sindh Civil Servants (E&D) Rules may not be taken against you. The reply must reach within 3 days failing whereby ex parte decision shall be taken against you.
' Given under my hand and seal of this Court. This the 6th day of August, 1999.
(Sd)
DISTRICT & SESSIONS Judge SHIKARPUR."
3. The appellant submitted a reply to the show-cause notice which was not considered satisfactory and an inquiry was conducted in the matter. After recording evidence learned District and Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the appellant along with co-accused, namely, Nisar Ahmed Jakhro and Abdul Fattah Shaikh were found guilty of committing an act of misconduct, warranting action under the Sindh Civil Services (E&D) Rules, 1973. After completing all the required formalities, the appellant along with other delinquent officials was dismissed from the service.
4. The departmental appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 1-4-2000. Hence this service appeal.
5. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned District and Sessions Judge committed violation of Efficiency and Discipline Rules by simultaneously acting as an authorized officer, as an inquiry officer and as a competent authority and thereby committed an illegality vitiating the entire proceedings. It was next contended that the statement of the appellant was recorded in question and answer form which militated against the verdict of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 SCMR 1440. Learned counsel, however, was unable to point out any prejudice having been caused to the appellant. He, nevertheless contended that the appellant was working merely as peon and was not a party to the fraud played by other officials of the Court, therefore, deserved a lesser penalty.
6. Conversely the learned A.-A.G. Supported the order and action of dismissal of the appellant contending that the appellant himself in his statement recorded on 30-8-1999 admitted to have seen the clerk Abdul Fattah Shaikh, who put forged signatures of Civil Judge, Garhi Yasin on the letter of release and handed over the same to the appellant for delivery at the Central Prison, Sukkur.
7. We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.
8. The perusal of the statement of the appellant recorded by him before the District and Sessions Judge on 7-9-1999, to a question as to what he has to say in rebuttal of the allegations, the appellant simply stated that he has nothing to say except what he has stated in the application dated 30-8-1999.
' The bare perusal of the application dated 30-8-1999 clearly reveals that the appellant in this application has categorically admitted that Mr. Abdul Fattah Shaikh, the Clerk, has put the forged signatures of Civil Judge Garhi Yasion on the release writ in his viewing and order him to take it to Central Prison, Sukkur for delivery.
8-A. By this way he has admitted this guilt having seen the forged signatures of the Judge being put on the release writ by co-accused and has taken away the same to the Central Prison, Sukkur.
In the circumstances, he was an accomplice in the offence committed conjointly with Abdul Fattah Shaikh, rather it was the appellant who accomplished the offence, by delivering the forged release writ, as a result of which the accused was released from jail. Thus the appellant would not be absolved of the act of misconduct.
9. In view of the categorical admission on the part of the appellant, we find ho need to go into the technicalities with regard to the violation of Efficiency and Discipline Rules as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, it must be observed that it is well-settled proposition of law that the Authority is fully competent to exercise the powers of Authorized Officer also. It is also equally well-settled that in case of admission of guilt by the delinquent official, holding of departmental inquiry is not necessitated by law. Needless to state that in the instant case the appellant has admitted his guilt, without even a bald plea of coercion pressure, and/or inducement of whatsoever nature.
10. Above discussion leads to the conclusion that the dismissed of the applicant is quite legal and valid.
11. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is accordingly dismissed.