ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN, - These above titled three appeals involving common question of facts and law, by consent of the parties counsel were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated judgment.
Relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of these appeals as emerged from the perusal of case files are that appellant Mrs. Sharma Rashdi remained posted as Sub-Divisional Education Officer (Females), Hyderabad City w.e.f. 22.07.1989 to 31.07,1997, appellant Mst. Zaibunissa Sahito remained posted as D.E.O, (F), Hyderabad City w.e.f. 10.10.1997 to 18.11.1997 (she remained as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (D.D.O.) from 15.10.1997 to 18.11.1997), while appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano remained posted as Junior Clerk in the office of S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City, w.e.f. 01.04.1990 to 18.11.1997. In the month of November, 1997, a case of preparation of double pay bill of primary School Teachers of Nationalized cadre for the month of October, 1997 amounting to Rs. 12,62,478/- in the office of S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City, was detected. It was also detected that a large number of lady P.S.Ts were' appointed/inducted in service in an irregular and illegal manner, besides, the salary of teachers in the bills was shown at the exaggerated rates in order to draw the amount more than the actual requirement. Accordingly, under the directives of the then Education Minister, an Inquiry Committee Comprising Director, Secondary Education, Deputy Director (Primary), Directorate of Primary Education, District Officer (F) Primary and Assistant Accounts Officer (B&A). Directorate of Primary Education, Hyderabad was constituted to probe into the cases of illegal/irregular appointment of Teachers/induction of ladies as P.S.Ts in the Girls Primary Schools of Hyderabad City and drawal of salary at Teachers at the exaggerated rates during the period from September, 1993 to 02.12.1997. The Committee scrutinized the record of appointments of P.S.Ts from September, 1993 to December, 1997, which revealed that in September, 1993, 68 Teachers who were selected on merit by the District Recruitment Committee, Hyderabad, were appointed. Out of which 51 Teachers were appointed on general merit, 16' against Teachers quota (25% of vacant posts while one girl was appointed against the seat reserved for disabled person). Out of said 68 posts, 28 posts were; vacant posts while 40 posts were provided Under the Prime Minister's Programme. On further verification of that record, it was noticed by the said Committee that in the year, 1993, as many as 370 lady P.S.Ts were shown to have been appointed on the basis of forged documents. Similarly, in the year, 1994, 9 lady P.S.Ts were inducted in service despite ban on appointments, besides, the documents of appointments were also found forged and fabricated. It also transpired to the Committee that in 1995 the then Government allocated some posts to the MPA/MNAs, but there was no vacant post in Hyderabad City' Sub-Division. However, during the period from January, 1995 to September, 1996, 137 lady P.S.Ts (78+14+25+19=137) were appointed. The perusal of offer, letters of appointment revealed that same were issued under the forged signatures of. The D.E.O. (Primary), Hyderabad, namely Mst. Kriairunnisa Memon and Hakimzadi Ansari, even the Medical fitness certificates contained forged signatures of the Medical Superintendent, Services Hospital, Hyderabad. The appointment orders of said ladies contained signature of Mst. Shama Rashdi, the then S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City. The documents, as per report, were taken into custody and committee recommended that same may be handed over to the police for verification of signatures of the officers concerned and for further investigation. The Committee also worked out that an amount of Rs. 19,064,715/- from November, 1993 to October, 1997 was over-drawn. The Committee also disclosed the names of M/s. Moula Bakhsh Buledi, Assistant/Head Clerk, Liaquat AM Joyo, Senior Clerk, Muhammad Hassan Daidano, Junior Clerk, who were said to had been in connivance with the beneficiary teachers and other private persons and were responsible for the said blunder. The Committee also disclosed the names of Abdul Ghafoor, Zulfiqar Ali Shaikh and Mansoor Ali, the Chowkidars who being matriculate were working with above said clerks in preparing the bills and issuance of cheques to teachers. In the end, the Committee pointed out that in the pay bills from October, 1993 to October, 1997, the names of real employees were not mentioned but instead the names of such ladies were entered who were not the employees of Education Department. Besides,, the service books were also not maintained properly and in case of many teachers the same were not even available.
As it appears, on the basis of above referred inquiry report submit in July, 1998, the disciplinary proceedings against Mst. Shama Rashdi, Mst. Rashida Soomro and Mst. Zaibunnissa Sahito were initiated by the Secretary, Education Department in the capacity of 'Authorized Officer' and they were issued 'separate charge sheet(s) dated 27.02.1999. Initially Mr. Nizamuddin Memon, Director, Secondary School Education, Hyderabad was appointed as Inquiry Officer. However, by another order dated 03.04.1999, a i.e members inquiry committee comprising Mr. Muhammad Siddique Memon, Deputy Secretary (Admn-I), as Chairman, Mr. Nizamuddin Memon, Director, Secondary School Education, Hyderabad, as Co-Chairman, Mr. Zamir^ Hussain Qazi, Director, Primary School Education, Hyderabad, Mr. Muhammad Sajjad Malah, District Education Officer (Male) Primary, Hyderabad and Ms. Afroze Siddiqui, Principal, Government Girls Pilot Higher Secondary Miran School, Hyderabad, as its Members, was constituted to conduct inquiry against the above said three S.D.E.Os. During the course of inquiry against the above said three ladies, the Committee noticed that the three clerks namely M/s. Moula Bux Buledi, Head Clerk, Liaquat Ali Joyo, Senior Clerk and Muhammad Hassan Daidano, Junior Clerk, were alleged to have acted in collusion with above said three female S.D.E.Os. Accordingly, with the permission/order of the Secretary, Education Department, the three clerks were then served with charge sheets dated 05.06.1999 issued by Mr. Zamir Hussain Qazi, Director, Primary Education, Hyderabad in the capacity of "Authorized Officer".
The Committee then re-started the inquiry proceedings. However, Mr. Zamir Hussain Qazi, one of the member of the Inquiry Committee, who .Acted as "Authorized Officer" in respect of three clerks, voluntarily disassociated himself from the inquiry. On conclusion of inquiry, the Committee declared appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi as guilty of the charge of face and illegal appointments, induction of their names in the pay bills and embezzlement of huge Government money in collusion with his staff. Mrs. Zaibunissa Sahito, was also found guilty of the charge of signing second bill amount to Rs. 12,62,478/- and attempt to encash the said bill through his staff, illegal withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 1,96,528/- through cheque but not disbursed the same to teachers and later on under pressure she deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in Bank and induction of names of fake teachers in pay bills in collusion with his staff. Similarly all the three Clerks were also found guilty of the charge that they in collusion with female S.D.E.Os made illegal appointments and embezzlement of huge Government money. However, Mrs. Rashida Soomro was not found guilty of any of the charge and was thus exonerated. The said inquiry report was then submitted to the Secretary, Education Department, Karachi on 30.06.1999. On the basis report, final show-cause notices were issued against the culprit employees, which were subsequently said to have been withdrawn, on the plea that officers and the ministerial staff were proceeded against separately instead of jointly.
Once again appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi, Moula Bux Buledi, Liaquat Ali Joyo and appellant Muhammad Hassan Diadano, were served with a joint show-cause notice dated 17.02.2000 issued by the Secretary, Education Department, in the capacity of "Authorized Officer". The details of misconduct against appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi and appellant Muhammad Hussain Daidano, were as under:- MRS. SHAM RASHDI, EX-S.D.E.O: (F), HYDERABAD CITY
(i) That you in collusion with each other, have inducted by fraudulent means, 814 female P.S.Ts during your incumbency as S.D.E.O. L&S.C 7 (F), Hyderabad City, even in violation of ban imposed by Government on the appointment,
(ii) Some fictitious names who did not exist physically but against their fake names cheques for monthly salaries were drawn from time to time and huge amount was misappropriated.
(iii) You have also given the colour of appointment to some teachers and postings in some cases by inducting the girls as teacher, later on shifted from, original school to somewhere else.
(iv) That you have fraudulently prepared Service Books in respect of 814 fake appointees/teachers whose joining was shown much after the date of their fake appointment. You have made 814 appointments without adopting legal process of selection prescribed under the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Transfer and Promotion) Rules, 1974 i.e. The advertisement, tests/interviews conducted and the merit list prepared by the recruitment committee headed by the District Education Officer, you have drawn the salaries of these fake appointees long after their fake appointments.
The bills of salaries were drawn after the date of fake appointments. Besides, salaries of fake appointees were drawn in excess showing fabricated emoluments of pay against their actual salaries admissible under rules Copy of the statements showing the details of such fake appointees and salaries drawn fraudulently is enclosed.
This imagined amount shown against all the teachers that bills were drawn from District Accounts Officer and kept Account of S.D.E.O. In various branches of Banks and thereafter personal cheques were issued. Some of those fictitious teachers appear to be acting as your agents, such act established the commission of fraud and mis-appropriation of Government funds to the tune of Rs.
25.00 millions causing the financial loss to Government ex-chequer."
MUHAMMAD HASSAN DAIDANO, JUNIOR CLERK
(i) That during your posting as Junior Clerk in the office of the S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City from 1.4.1990 to 18.11.1997 you were performing the work of preparation of pay bills of Primary Teachers and you will ulterior motives incorporated the huge number of ladies in the bills who were neither the employees of the Education Department nor were appointed as P.S.Ts and draw their salaries with an intention to misappropriate the Government money.
(ii) That you were in a knowledge that there was a ban on appointment but you in. Collusion with Mrs. Sharma Rashdi the then S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City entered the fresh names in the monthly salary bills and draw same fraudulently and .Put the Government into the loss of crores of rupees.
(iii) That you knowing concealed the fact of illegal appointments and mis-appropriation of Government money and never brought such illegalities to the notice of higher authorities as such you are the part and parcel of inducting forged names of P.S.Ts in the pay bills and wrong withdrawal of Government money from the State Exchequer in collusion with Mrs. Sharma Rashdi the then S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City.
The above acts of misconduct were done by the in' collusion with each other to cause wrongful loss to Government and the wrongful gain to yourselves and the illegal appointees involving an amount of millions of rupees."
6. Similarly vide another sow-cause notice dated 17.02.2000, appellant Mst. Zaibunnissa Sahito, ex- S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City, appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano, along with M/s. Moula Bux Buledi and Liaquat Ali Joyo, were served with a joint show-cause notice dated 17.02.2000 issued by the Secretary, Education Department, in the capacity of "Authorized Officer". In the said notice, the details of misconduct against appellant Mrs. Zaibunnissa Sahito and appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano, were as under:- MRS. ZAIBUNNISSA SAHITO, EX-S.D.E.O. (F), HYDERABAD CITY
(i) You in collusion with your concerned clerks made an attempt to draw an amount of Rs.
12,62,478/- being double bill on account of salaries of the P.S.Ts for the month of October, 1997, with an intention to misappropriate the same.
(ii) You have drawn a sum of Rs. 1,96,525/- through a cheque on 17.10.1997 and not disbursed to the teachers. Subsequently the cheques were also issued to individuals for the same purpose i.e. Salary for the month of October, 1997 but after knowing that the cheques issued to the P.S.Ts are being dishonoured due to nil balance, you deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the same account on 27.10.1997 to cover the fraud of withdrawal of amount from the Bank.
(iii) That you in collusion with your official staff had induced in the name of fake teachers in the pay bills and claimed the amount of Rs. 12,62,478/- for fraudulently appointed P.S.Ts and towards salaries for the month of October, 1997 and caused loss of Rs. 12,62,478/- to the. Government.
MR. MUHAMMAD HASSAN DAI PANO, JUNIOR CLERK
(i) That during your posting as Junior Clerk in the office of the S.D..E.O. (F), Hyderabad City from 1.4.1990 to 18.11.1997 you were performing the working preparation of pay bills Primary Teachers and you with ulterior motives incorporated the huge number of ladies in the bills who were neither the employees of the Education Department nor were appointed P.S.Ts and draw their salaries with an intention to mis-appropriate the Government money.
(ii) That you in collusion with Mrs. Zaibunissa Sahito drew a double pay bill amounting to Rs.
12,62,478/- tried to encash with an intention to misappropriate the Government money.
(iii) That you knowingly concealed the fact of illegal appointment and misappropriation of Government money and never brought such illegalities to the notice of the higher authorities as such you are the part and parcel of inducing forged names of P.S.Ts in the pay bills and wrong withdrawal of Government money from the State Exchequer in collusion with Mrs. Zaibunissa Sahito the then S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City.
In both the show-cause notices the regular inquiry was dispensed with as according to "Authorized Officer" it was not necessary.
7. In their respective replies to the show-cause notices, appellants denied the allegations and explained their positions, which were not found satisfactory, as such, they were separately served with final show-cause notices dated 22.03.2000 proposing major penalty of dismissal from service against appellants Mrs. Shama Rashdi and Muhammad Hassan Daidano and major penalty of reduction in rank against Mrs. Zaibunissa Sahito, which too they replied. They were also provided chance of personal hearing. Ultimately, with the approval of "Authority" appellants Mrs. Shama Rashdi and Muhammad Hassan Daidano were awarded major penalty of dismissal from service vide joint order dated 24.10.2000, whereas appellant Mrs. Zaibunnissa Sahito and appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano vide another joint order dated 30.10.2000 were awarded major penalty of "Reduction to lower post/pay/scale for a period of two years' and major penalty of removal from service, respectively. After availing departmental remedy which remained un- responded, appellants Mrs. Shama Rashdi and Muhammad Hassan Daidano filed appeal Nos.
63/2001 and 117/2001 against original impugned order dated 24.10.2000, whereas appellant Mrs. Zaibunnissa Sahito after availing departmental remedy which too remained un-responded filed appeal No. 79/2001 against original impugned order dated 30.10.2000. It is very much pertinent to point out here that appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano has riot filed any service appeal against the original impugned order dated 30.10.2000 whereby he was awarded major penalty of removal from service.
8. In their written statement filed separately in cash appeal, respondents have controverted the assertions raised m the memo, of appeals.
9. Mr. Nizam Ali Khan, learned counsel for appellant in appeal No. 63/2001 argued that the matter at length. After going details of appellant's past services so also his family background; he submitted that in fact finding inquiry conducted by a committee headed by Mr. M.A. Rashed, the then Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Hyderabad in the year, 1998, appellant was not found guilty of the charges and she was exonerated, while the ministerial staff which includes appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano were found responsible for all such illegal appointments, misappropriation of Government money and other bunglings. Despite the fact that appellant was earlier exonerated from the charges, she was again proceeded against departmentally under the orders of Mrs. Mehtab Akbar Rashidi, the then Secretary, (Education Department, with whom appellant had some family dispute. ' An inquiry committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Muhammad Siddique Memon, Deputy Secretary (Admn.), Education Department (who was direct subordinate of Mrs. Mehtab Akbar Rashdi) was constituted to probe the matter and in the said inquiry proceedings two female officers Mrs. Zaibunnissa Sahito (appellant) arid Mrs. Rashida Soomro so also three members of ministerial staff namely M/s. Moula Bux Buledi, Head Clerk, Liaquat Ali Joyo), Senior Clerk and Muhammad Hassan Daidano, Junior Clerk were also joined. Further, he contended that although the inquiry committee was comprising of i.e members, however, during proceedings, two of its members namely Mr. Nizamuddin Memon, Director, Secondary School Education, Hyderabad and Mr. Zamir Hussain Qazi, Director Primary School Education, Hyderabad, as per note appended at the end of the inquiry report disassociated-themselves from the inquiry, while two other Members namely Mr. Muhammad Sajjad Malah, District Education Officer, (Male), Hyderabad and Ms. Afroz Siddiqui, Principal, Government Girts Pilot Higher Secondary Miran School, Hyderabad, attended the inquiry proceedings only once, but they subsequently were made to sign the inquiry report, therefore, the said inquiry report has no legal value. Even otherwise, as argued by learned counsel, the whole inquiry was conducted in cursory manner, the statements of witnesses were not considered in its true respect but on account of personal assumptions and presumptions coupled with mala i.e, in the inquiry report which was drafted and prepared by one man, appellant was made responsible for all such alleged fake appointments and misappropriation of Government money and on the basis of said inquiry report appellant was served with a final show-cause notice which was elaborately replied. In any case, the said inquiry proceedings were, however, declared as being infructuous for the reason that female officers and ministerial staff were proceeded against separately instead of jointly as required under rules 5(6) of the Sindh Civil Servants (E&D)
Rules, 1973, and the show- cause so also final show-cause notices were withdrawn. However, once again appellant with three clerks was proceeded against jointly and at that time the inquiry was dispensed with, without showing any justifiable reason and ultimately appellant was penalized vide impugned order dated 24.10.2000. Learned counsel also stated that in view of the seriousness of the charges which were denied vehemently, regular inquiry was must and major penalty in the absence of regular inquiry is neither warranted by law nor justified and proper. He added that not a single teacher was ever appointed by the appellant but the clerks concerned managed the said fake orders by manipulating and forging appellant's signatures and subsequently included their names in the pay bills slowly and gradually, which fact is evident from the perusal of record so also the inquiry reports. In the end learned counsel submitted that due to personal vendetta and rivalry appellant has falsely been implicated and that impugned order being illegal, perverse, passed in utter disregard of mandatory provisions of law so also in violation of the principles of natural justice may be set aside and appellant may be reinstated in service with all back and consequential benefits.
10. Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, learned counsel for appellant in appeal No. 79/2001 in his lengthy arguments contended that appellant while posted as Head Mistress, Govt. Girls Zeenat-ul-lslam High School, Pretabad, Hyderabad vide order dated 08.10.1997 issued by the Director, Primary Education, Hyderabad Region, allowed to look after the affairs of S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City as In charge till further orders. She remained In charge S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad from 10.10.1997 to 19.11.1997 -i.e. Only for 40 days and as D.D.O. For 25 days in addition to her own duties of Head Mistress.
Immediately after taking over charge she was apprised that cheques of salaries of September, 1997 issued to the teachers were not being honoured by the Bank for Want of balance in the relevant account, whereupon, she called the dealing clerks namely Moula Bux Buledi, Head Clerk, Liqauat Ali Joyo, Senior Clerk and Muhammad Hassan Daidano, Junior Clerk and direct them to bring relevant record but since her orders were taken lightly and on receiving no response appellant reported the matter to the Director, Primary Education, Hyderabad vide confidential letter dated 25.10.1997, with a copy to D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad. In response thereto, appellant received letter dated 28.10.1997 from D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad whereby she was asked to suggest ways to stop and curb loot, which the appellant replied vide letter dated 03.11.1997. Learned counsel further submitted that on .08.11.1997 appellant on direction of her superior visited State Bank where she was informed that Bank has received a duplicate bill duly passed by the Treasury Office for encashment and when she made inquiry from Liaquat Ali Joyo, Senior Clerk who slipped away from office without permission along with related record, as such appellant reported the matter to the Director, Primary Education, Hyderabad vide letter dated 08.11.1997 followed by comprehensive report dated 08.11.1997 but on receiving on positive response from her higher ups the appellant reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption authorities vide letter dated 08.11.1997 with full details of fraudulent activities of the ministerial staff and the fictitious appointments, the copy of which was also endorsed to the .Director, Primary Education. Hyderabad. Thereafter, the Deputy Director, A.C.E., Hyderabad vide his letter dated 15.11.1997 directed the Inspector Assets Cell, A C.E., Hyderabad to investigate the matter and while the investigation was in progress appellant was relieved of and her order of In charge S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad, was withdrawn vide Notification dated 19.11.1997.
Learned counsel further stated that instead of appreciating the boldness of the appellant and the efforts taken by her in surfacing the heavy bunglings, illegalities, irregularities, misappropriation of huge Government money and the names of those who were responsible for doing all such activities, appellant herself was proceeded against departmentally on the so-called allegation of signing duplicate bill of October, 1997 and attempt to draw the said amount, which allegation in view of the documents, placed on the record is false and fabricated. Learned counsel added that whole disciplinary proceedings were conducted in sheer violation of the prescribed rules and that the allegation being serious and vehemently denied regular inquiry. As imperative but it was dispensed with, therefore, major penalty awarded to appellant is not sustainable and may be set aside.
11. Mr. Abdul Latif Channa, learned counsel for appellant in appeal No. 117/2001 also argued the matter at some length. He contended that appellant was simply a junior clerk and preparation of bills or maintaining accounts was not his job, besides, he had nothing to do with the appointments made either by the D.E.O. (F.) or S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that not a single pay bill was ever prepared by the appellant and for that he time and again asked the authorities concerned to get the signatures/handwritings verified from the expert but instead of going on right path, the authorities concerned as well as members of the so-called inquiry committee merely on personal presumptions and assumptions coupled with personal vendetta involved the entire ministerial staff of the office of S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City in the bunglings of high level. Learned counsel also challenged the very legality Of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant and stated that the procedure adopted by the Authorized Officer was neither proper nor legal, besides, once the earlier proceedings were declared infructuous and withdrawn, there must be some strong, solid and concrete reasons for de novo proceedings, which were not forthcoming in the instant case, therefore, the whole disciplinary proceedings being against the spirit of law and rules may be declared void, the impugned order may be set- aside and appellant may be reinstated in service with all back and consequential benefits.
13. Conversely, learned Asstt. A.G. While referring the written statement and numerous documents placed on, the record by the parties argued that appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi remained S.D.E.O.
(F), Hyderabad for a longest period w.e.f. 22.07.1989 to 30.07.1997 i.e. For a period of 8 years and during her period as many as 814 P.S.Ts were appointed in an irregular and illegal manner with the help and connivance of her subordinate staff. She being a Drawing and Disbursing Officer used to sign the monthly pay bills regularly and was thus responsible for all the bunglings made in the office. Learned Asstt. A.G. Further contended that there were large number of fictitious teachers not working in any school but their salary was being drawn for years together and misappropriated.
She added that appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi very cleverly after issuing posting orders of illegal appointees used to issue their transfer orders within few days just to give impression that appointments made by her were valid. Learned Asstt. A.G. Also stated that appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi was in knowledge that only 68+22 P.S.Ts were appointed by the Departmental Selection Committee during the year 1993 and 1995, as such, any appointment mad in excess of such list was neither legal nor valid but appellant neither intimated such position to her immediate boss nor even bothered to make inquiry and her attitude per se sufficient to prove that she in excess of her powers and in violation of the rules appointed number of P.S.Ts majority of which were fake appointments and thus put the Government exchequer in heavy financial losses, .Therefore, the impugned order being legal, proper and. Justified may be maintained. As regard Mrs. Zaibunissa Sahito, learned Asstt A.G. Stated that although she remained in charge S.D.E.O. (F) for a very brief period of 40 days and during her short stay the entire bunglings, illegalities and irregularities committed during the era of her predecessor were un-veiled, yet Mrs. Zaibunissa Sahito issued numerous cheques in the names of fake teachers and also attempted to get encashed the duplicate bill amounting to Rs- 12,62,478/- but due to timely complaint from the State Bank of Pakistan, she could not succeed in her attempt, therefore, she too was rightly proceeded against and penalized and that Authority has already taken*a lenient5 view a such she is not entitled to any further lenlency. So far appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano is concerned, learned Asstt. A.G.
Argued that he and his two accomplice namely Moula Bux Buledi, Head Clerk and Liaquat Ali Joyo, Senior Clerk, joined hands with Mrs. Shama Rashdi and they ell in connivance with each other committed series of bunglings, illegalities and irregularities and put the Government into heavy financial losses. Learned Asstt. A.G. Stated that without the help and connivance of these three clerks it was not possible for' Mrs. Shama Rashdi to loot Government money, therefore, appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano was rightly penalized. In the end, learned Asstt. A.G. Submitted that full fair and reasonable opportunity was provided to all the incumbents and that inquiry was conducted by impartial officers of the Education Department and they in their detailed report found all the three appellants and others fully involved/implicated in the melo-tragedy, however, in order to remove legal lacuna the earlier proceedings were withdrawn and the appellants were proceeded against de novo and thus no illegality has been committed by the department.
13. We have carefully considered the .Above submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties have minutely gone through the material placed on record. We first like to take up appeal No. 79/2001 filed by Mst. Zaibunnisa Sahito as because of her the entire bungings, illegalities and irregularities which were being committed in the Education Department, Hyderabad for years together were unveiled. Admittedly, she remained posted as In charge S.D.E.O. (Female), Hyderabad for a very short period w.e.f. 10.10.1997 to 19.11.1997 i.e. 40 days in addition to her .Own duties as Head Mistress, Government Girls Zeenatul Islam High School, Hyderabad. Immediately after her taking over the charge she heard hue and cry from several teachers that the cheques of their salary for the month of September, 1997 *were not being honoured by concerned Bank for want of balance. She through her confidential letter dated 25.10.1997 reported the matter to the Director,. Schools Education A (Primary), Hyderabad, wherein she also stated that as per her knowledge the teachers and peons were over and above the sanctioned strength. Although, from Director she^received no response but the D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad vide her letter dated 28.10.1997 asked appellant to. Suggest ways to stop and curb further loot. In reply thereto, appellant in her letter dated 03.11.1997 suggested that:-
(i) Salaries for October, 1997 may be disbursed on "D" sheets;
(ii) Head Mistress may be directed to submit "D" sheets of the staff actual posted in their schools but not for the staff working in their schools on verbal orders or on derailment;
(iii) Head Mistress' may be directed to supply the list of teachers/peons who were appointed after- 01.07J992 onwards so also their original orders and other documents so that fake appointments could be sorted out;
(iv) Appointment orders, issued after 01.07.1992 and onwards from D.E.O. (F) Primary, Hyderabad may also be supplied for further necessary action.
As it appears from the perusal of record, no attention was paid to her suggestions. However, at least one thing was very much clear that none of the higher ups was serious to thrash out the bunglings and to curb the evil and further loot in the office of S.D.E.O. (F) City, Hyderabad. In any ease on 08.11.1997 appellant on a direction (contained in a chit) of hep Director reached Local Branch of State Bank where she was informed that duplicate bill of salary for October-, 1997 amounting to Rs. 12,62,478/- duly passed by the Treasury Officer, Hyderabad was received by them for encashment. On receipt of such information, she returned to her office and inquired from Liaquat Ali, Senior Clerk about, the matter who instead of giving satisfactory reply slipped from the office along with all the relevant Accounts record, whereupon- appellant at once reported the matter to the Director vide her letter dated 08.11.1997 followed by the another detailed letter on the same day containing full details with a request to conduct Audit of the record and to post some other staff in her office. On receiving no positive response, appellant as a last resort reported the matter ' to the Anti-Corruption Authorities through her letter dated 11.11.1997 containing almost every detail of happenings In her office. On her said letter an Investigating Officer was nominated on 15.11.1997 to conduct investigation and within four days whereof, appellant was relieved from the additional charge ( of S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad. Simple perusal of the above letters written by appellant to her higher ups during her short stay of 40 days (in fact only 23 days as D.D.O) leads us to the only irresistible conclusion that because of her utmost devotion and dedication the irregularities of such a large scale saw lime-light. But instead of giving reward, award or appreciation of any kind of her efforts, she herself was put to task and^ proceeded against departmentally that in collusion of her staff she attempted to draw an amount of Rs. 12,62,478/- being double bill' of October, 1997, with an intention to misappropriate the same and that she had drawn an amount of Rs. 1,96,525/- through cheque on 17.10.1997 but not disbursed to the teachers and that the cheques she issued to the teachers were being dis-honoured for want of balance, as such she deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the account on 27.10.1997 to cover her. Fraud; The allegations so levelled on the face of it in the light of the correspondence made by appellant appears to be absurd. Had there been any mala i.e intention .On her part she could have very easily manage to usurp handsome amount of. Government and there was no need for her to open a pandaro box and to made such correspondence wither higher ups or to report the matter to Anti-Corruption authorities. As is evident from the perusal of record, the authorities concerned before initiating the disciplinary proceedings could not even bothered to go through the letters written by the appellant to her higher ups but merely on personal assumptions and presumptions without applying - mind penalized the appellant for no fault on her part. Perusal of the record further reveals that appellant was not willing .To sign pay bill for the month of October, 1997 until and unless the "D" sheets are received from the concerned schools for the purpose of verification of actual teachers with the sanctioned strength but she was directed by her boss to sign the same on' the' basis of previous bill for the month of September, 1997, which she signed and at that juncture she was trapped by the mischievous mongers who obtained her signatures on. 3 copies of the bills-v/rich, as it appears,, she signed innocently. Her that innocence find support from the fact that prior to signing the bill she had already reported the' bunglings going on in/her office to her higher ups and once again prior to passing of the second bill she in detail apprise her higher ups the series of illegalities and the irregularities committed in her office prior to her posting as In charge S.D.E.O. (F), Hyderabad City. This all shows that during such short period she performed her duties with devotion * and dedication and unveiled the faces of all the mischieve who. Were looting the department since years together. Therefore, in our humble view the penalty of "Reduction in rank for a period of two years awarded to appellant being opposed to facts brought on the record, is neither maintainable nor sustainable and thus liable {o' be set aside.
14. Now we deal with appeal Nos. 63/2001 filed by Mrs. Shama Rashdi and 117/200.1 filed by Muhammad Hassan Daidano. The record reveals that they both remained posted as ' S.D.E.O. (F) and Junior Clerk respectively for a pretty long time. Appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi remained posted from 22.07.1989 to 31.07.1997 i.e. For complete 8 years while appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano remained posted from 01.04.1990 to 18.11.1997 i. e. For TA years. All such alleged bunglings, illegalities^ irregularities, appointment of fake teachers, withdrawal and misappropriation of huge amount were committed/made during that period. Initially, a fact finding inquiry under the Chairmanship of the then Director, Secondary Education was conducted, which pin-pointed the names of three clerks namely Moula Bux Buledi, Liaquat Ali Joyo and Muhammad Hassan Daidano and three Chowkidars namely Abdul Ghafoor, Zulfiqar Ali Shaikh and Mansoor Ali, who in connivance with each others and the beneficiary teachers were found responsible for all such blunders. The fact finding inquiry report further reveals that there were a large number of appointment orders contained signatures of appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi who denied her signatures on the same, thus the committee suggested that the record which was taken in custody be handed over to the police for Verification of signatures and for further investigation. It means that appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi was not exonerated from the charge of embezzlement and misappropriation by the fact finding inquiry committee, as claimed by her. On the basis of findings of the fact finding inquiry committee, the three lady officers and three clerks were ordered to be proceeded against departmentally under (E&D) Rules. Accordingly, separate charge sheets dated 27.02.1999 were issued to Mrs. Rashida Soomro, Mst. Zaibunissa Sahito, Mrs. Shama Rashdi by the Secretary, Education in the capacity of 'Authorized Officer' and a i.e members Inquiry committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Muhammad Siddique Memon, Deputy Secretary (Admn-I) was constituted to probe the matter. As regards three clerks they were separately proceeded against to whom the charge sheets dated 05.06.1999 were issued by the Director, Primary Education, Hyderabad in the capacity of 'Authorized Officer'. While the inquiry under the Chairmanship, of Deputy Secretary (Admn- I) was in half-way, the committee noticed that the clerks were being proceeded against separately, accordingly, the Committee with the permission of the Secretary, Education, joined said three clerks in the inquiry proceedings. The Committee after conclusion of the inquiry submitted its report to the Secretary, Education, who on the basis of such inquiry report issued final show-cause notice to all the culprits. However, before final outcome of the said proceedings, the same were withdrawn being infructuous on the ground that the lady officers and ministerial staff were proceeded against separately instead of jointly as required under rule 5(6) of the Sindh Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. Against appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi, Moula Bux Buledi; Liaquat Air Joyo, and appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano were served with a joint show-cause notice dated 17.02,2000 issued by the Secretary, Education Department. Similarly, appellant Mrs. Zaibunnissa Sahito, Moula Bux Buledi, Liaquat Ali Joyo and appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano were served with another joint show-cause notice dated 17.02.2000 issued by the Secretary, Education Department: However, this time the regular inquiry was dispensed with. Ultimately, on the basis of replies of show-cause and final show-cause notices, appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi and three clerks were awarded major penalty of dismissal from service vide joint order dated 24.10.2000, while by another joint order dated 30,10.2000. Mrs. Zaibunnissa Sahito was awarded major penalty of "reduction in lower post/pay scale for a period of two years" and others were awarded major penalty of removal from service, Admittedly, the allegations were of serious nature which were denied vehemently and in view of the settled law regular inquiry was very much necessary. It is pertinent to state here that previously regular inquiry was conducted but since the said disciplinary proceedings were withdrawn being infructuous on account of legal lacunae, the findings arrived therein cannot be made basis for awarding major penalty in subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
15. Accordingly the impugned order dated 24.10.2000 in respect of appellants Mrs. Shama Rashdi and Muhammad Hassan Daidano is set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No. 2 (Secretary, Education Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi) for conducting, fresh inquiry in accordance with existing law. Meanwhile, appellant Mrs. Shama Rashdi is directed to be reinstated in service to clothe her with the status of civil servant only for the purpose of facing fresh disciplinary proceedings, which shall be concluded within 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The intervening period would follow the outcome of fresh inquiry proceedings. As regards appellant Muhammad Hassan Daidano, it may be stated that he has not challenged the second order dated 30.10.2000 whereby he along with three others was removed from service, therefore, question of his reinstatement does not arise. However, appeal No. -79/2001 is accepted and the impugned order dated 30.10.2000 so for appellant Mrs. Zaibunnissa Sahito is concerned is set aside. No order as to costs.
16. Announced in open Court.
Given under our hands and seal of the Tribunal this 11th day of July., 2006.