' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated 31-5-2007 whereby his appeal against the order, dated 1-1-2005 of his removal from service on the charge of gross misconduct was dismissed. The petitioner while serving as Assistant Commissioner, Mines Labour Welfare Organization, Labour.
Transport, Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Sindh, on an earlier occasion, was removed from service vide order, dated 12-4-2001, which was set aside by the Tribunal in Appeal No,227 of 2001, filed by him vide judgment, dated 1-9-2003 wherein the case was remanded to the department for holding a fresh enquiry in accordance with law within ninety days. In post remand proceedings, the petitioner was proceeded against on the charges contained in the charge-sheet served upon him on 31-12-2003 as Under:-- "(i) That during your posting as ACML-WO you converted 147 work charged/contingent paid staff into regular establishment by preparing an entirely fabricated statement while the organization did not need their services as the excise duty on specified minerals is collected through the auction or self-assessm ent basis.
(ii) That you appointed a number of persons whose ages were between 13 and 14 years at the time of their so-called appointment in 1989.
(iii) That you purchased the office accommodation at Al-Burhan Centre, Saddar, Karachi for Rs,2.0 million which was paid from ledger account (P.L.A.) meant for certain Labour Schemes for the Labourers without the concurrence of Finance Department.
(iv) In their statement, 21 persons who appeared before the Additional Director Labour, Hyderabad reported that you have been taking duty from them in your village and paying them nominal salaries and later the services of whom were reportedly terminated.
(v) That under the order of the ex-Governor, Sindh for scrutiny of ghost employees and fearing exposure, you terminated the service of about sixty-eight employees thus, confirthing the allegations of their Ghost Status.
(vi) That you in collaboration with your Accounts Officer Mr. Yar Muhammad Khan continued disbursement of salary to the workers during the period when the contracts for collection of excise duty on specified minerals were awarded to the contractors by public auction whereas it was the obligation of the contractor(s) to pay the salaries to such staff as per agreement signed by you.
(vii) That during the course of identification/verification of alleged regularized work charged employees by the Additional Director Labour, Hyderabad, it was noted that Messrs Abdul Sattar son of Muhammad Akram and Khalid Akram son of Muhammad Akram who believe to be your real nephews were threatening various persons outside the office of Additional Director Labour, Hyderabad of dire consequences if they did not give statements against Mr. Yar Muhammad Khan.
(viii) That as per statement of Dr. Anwar Ali Leghari, Medical Officer/Incharge Lakhra Coal Field Dispensary the following staff is employed in the Dispensary at Lakhra Coal Fields:--
(a) Mr. Aman (Teacher)
(b) Mr. Muhammad Hashim (Teacher)
(c) Mr. Shahiman (Teacher)
(d) Mr. Ghulam Akbar (Naib Qasid)
(e) Mr. Abdul Rasool (Naib Qasid)
(f) Mr. Muhammad Arif (Teacher)
(g) Mr. Nabi Bux Designation not known ' Out of above (7) (seven) employees, only Messrs Shahiman and Muhammad Arif, Teachers were regular, rest were absconding non-existent and drawing their salaries regularly since long.
(ix) That you and Mr. Yar Muhammad Khan continued to disburse the salaries to such staff but parted up on some financial matters and accused each other on corruption although you both were involved in the protection of alleged ghost employees."
2. The reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner having been found not satisfactory, a regular enquiry was conducted against him. The Enquiry Officer having found him guilty of the charges, submitted his report accordingly. Consequently, he was served with a final show-cause notice and was also supplied a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply to the final show-cause notice and competent authority having provided him an opportunity of personal hearing. Removed him from service vide order, dated 1-1-2005. The petitioner challenged his removal from service before the Tribunal but without any success, hence this petition.
3. The petitioner had engaged Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record to represent him before this Court in this petition but today he having bypassed his learned counsel, has preferred to himself argue the case and in order to procrastinate the proceedings, has made an oral request for adjournment, which has been declined. The main contention of the petitioner is that during the course of enquiry, witnesses were examined in his absence and he was not afforded opportunity of cross-examination. The contention of the petitioner is not borne out from the record in view of the observation of the Tribunal that petitioner instead of appearing before the Enquiry Officer, made an application that fresh enquiry could not be held against him beyond the period of ninety days, prescribed by the Tribunal and thus, the concurrent findings of fact, in this behalf are not open to exception in this petition for leave to appeal. The petitioner then, on merits, contended that all appointments were made by him with the approval of the competent Authority and he was not responsible for the alleged illegality in the appointments but he without disputing the appointments of persons of the age of 13/14 years submitted that there is no bar to the appointments of minors, which were duly proved by the competent Authority and made an attempt to justify the appointments of minors, Be that as it may, there are concurrent findings of the departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal to the effect that the appointments made by the petitioner were ghost and did not exist at the site but he has been disbursing their salaries illegally and unauthorisedly. There is nothing on record to rebut the above findings which have been concluded on definite and concrete material on record and we are not inclined to disturb the same on flimsy and technical grounds.
4. The last contention of the petitioner is that he has been exonerated in the criminal case registered in respect of the illegal appointments in question. It is well-settled proposition of law that prosecution on criminal charge and departmental proceedings are entirely independent to each other as one relates to the enforcement of criminal liability whereas the other is concerned with the service discipline. Therefore, acquittal on criminal charge may have no bearing on the validity of the disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, both the proceedings can proceed side by side and there is no legal bar to the continuousness of departmental proceedings after the conviction or acquittal from criminal case. There is plethora of case-law on the subject but we would not refer to anyone as the law is well-settled.
5. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, we find hardly any ground to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.