' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition is directed against judgment, dated 27-9-2002 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal Karachi in service appeal filed by the respondent against the order of departmental authority.
2. The facts giving arise this petition are that respondent Haji Muhammad Kunjan Narejo while posted as Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineer Department Khairpur, appointed Liaquat Ali and Ghulam Rasool as Naib Qasid and Chowkidar respectively during the period when the Government of Sindh had imposed ban on fresh appointments.
3. The respondent was served with charge-sheet containing the charge of misconduct, in terms of rule 3(a)(b) & (c) of the Sindh Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973, on the basis of allegations, that he appointed the above named two persons one as Naib Qasid and the other as Chowkidar during the period when the Government had imposed ban on fresh recruitments. In appeal, the respondent urged that although none of the, charges was proved yet the competent authority, having formed opinion that respondent was guilty of the charge of misconduct, imposed upon him minor penalty of withholding two annul increments. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that penalty imposed upon the respondent was not legal, set aside the order of departmental authority.
4. It has been contended by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the order by virtue of which the Government of Sindh imposed ban on recruitments, was properly circulated for information of all concerned and consequently, the functionaries of Government of Sindh at all levels would be deemed to have the knowledge of the Government instructions and the excuse of the respondent that he had no knowledge of the ban on recruitments would not be considered a valid ground to justify his action. The lack of knowledge of such administrative instructions was not only inefficiency of the respondent rather it would squarely bring his act within the purview of misconduct.
5. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General and also perused the record with his assistance. The petitioners have not brought any evidence on record showing that the letter containing the instructions regarding the imposition. Of ban on fresh appointments was circulated at all levels and respondent, despite having the knowledge of the instructions in questions, made the appointments which would tantamount to insubordination and misconduct. It has been observed by the Tribunal that respondent was not associated in the inquiry and no evidence, oral or documentary, was brought on record to establish that he proceeded in wilful disobedience of the Government instructions.
6. There is no cavil to the proposition that functionaries of the Government are presumed to have the knowledge of instructions regarding the policy matters concerning with the Government business and wilful violation of such instructions would definitely bring the matter within the ambit of misconduct but in the present case, we find that nothing was brought on record to show that the order regarding ban on the recruitments was circulated at all levels and the respondent having the conscious knowledge of such instructions, made appointment in violation thereof to bring the matter within the ambit of misconduct. There is also nothing on record to show that appointments were made for some ulterior motive or extraneous consideration and consequently, it would be seen that if the respondent, who was otherwise competent to make such appointment, proceeded to fill the two vacant posts in good faith during the period when there was ban on the recruitments, he would not be liable to be proceeded against for committing an act of misconduct. Learned Additional Advocate-General has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment or the involvement of any substantial question of law in the matter calling for interference of this Court. This petition has no substance and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Leave is refused.