' JUSTICE (R) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against the original impugned order, dated 1-1-2005 issued by the Secretary, Government of Sindh, Labour and Industries Department, Karachi, whereby appellant was awarded major penalty of Removal from Service and appellate order/letter, dated 13-6-2005 whereby his departmental appeal was rejected by the appellate authority.
2. This is second round of litigation. The appellant was earlier proceeded against departmentally and finally vide order dated 12-4-2001 he was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service.
After availing departmental remedy, appellant had filed Appeal No,227 of 2001 which vide judgment, dated 1-9-2003 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the department for holding fresh inquiry in accordance with law and to conclude the same within 90 days. After remand, appellant was proceeded afresh and he was served with a charge-sheet, dated 31-12- 2003 issued by the Secretary, Labour and Industries, Government of Sindh/Authorised Officer, along with statement of allegations, which reads 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 in collected through the auction or self-assessm ent basis.
(ii) That you appointed a number of persons, whose ages vary 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 millions which was paid from ledger account (PLA) 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 services of about sixty eight employees thus confirming 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 that the following staff is employed in the Dispensary at Lakhra Coal Fields:-
(a) Mr. Aman (Teacher)
(b) Mr. Muhammad Hashim (Teacher)
(c) Mr. Shahimann (Teacher)
(d) Mr. Ghulam Akbar (Naib Qasid)
(e) Mr. Abdul Rasool (Nail) Qasid)
(1) Mr. Muhammad Arif (Teacher)
(g) Mr. Nabi Bux Designation not known.
' Out of above (7) (Seven) employees, only Messrs Shahimann and Muhammad Arif teacher 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.
' The Commissioner, Sindh Employees Social Security Institution, Karachi was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry and appellant was directed to furnish reply to the above charge-sheet to the Inquiry Officer. In his reply dated 15-1-2004 appellant denied the allegations and explained his position. Thereafter inquiry was commenced during which the Inquiry Officer recorded statements of various witnesses and after conclusion of the same submitted his inquiry report, dated 3-4-2004 declaring appellant guilty of all the charges. Appellant was served with a final show-cause notice, dated 20-5-2004 along with copy of inquiry report, which too he replied. Ultimately, after affording personal hearing, the appellant was awarded major penalty of removal from service as per impugned order, dated 1-1-2005, which he challenged in departmental appeal but it was rejected as per letter, dated 13-6-2005. He has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
3. In support of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant while referring the memo. Of appeal, appellant's replies to the charge-sheet and show-cause notice and certain documents placed on record argued that whole disciplinary proceedings initiated, conducted and concluded were in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of law/rules. He submitted that appellant's earlier Appeal No,227 of 2001 was allowed on 1-9-2003 and matter was remanded for conducting fresh inquiry within 90 days but as against that department had concluded the same after over one year, which by itself is sufficient to show the mala fide on the part of the officers who were inimical to the appellant due to departmental jealousy. He stated that appellant was earlier ordered to be reinstated forthwith but he was reinstated after quite considerable time and was immediately put under suspension. On the point of inquiry, learned counsel contended that not a single witness was examined in presence of appellant and no proper chance to rebut the allegations and to defend himself was provided to him. Learned counsel has submitted that appellant was vexed twice as he had already been exonerated by this Tribunal but was again proceeded against departmentally on the same set of allegations. He added that during the course of inquiry appellant moved application for supply of certain documents and to summon some witnesses but neither the requisite documents were supplied to him nor the witnesses were summoned, thus the appellant was prejudiced and deprived to defend himself inasmuch as certain documents produced by the appellant were also not taken into consideration. He submitted that all the 147 employees were appointed in proper way and necessary approval was obtained from the Secretaries of the relevant time and for which the budget was also allocated but that fact was not considered at all.
The matter was also investigated by the Anti-Corruption authorities and finally appellant was exonerated as nothing incriminating was available against him. Lastly, learned counsel stated that appellant was unnecessarily dragged into departmental proceedings which he faced four almost 7 years without any fault on his part despite the fact that he was earlier exonerated by the Anti- Corruption Committee so also by this Tribunal and that appellant being innocent, his appeal may be allowed and he may be reinstated in service with all back and consequential benefits. In support of his contention he relied upon (i) PLD 1994 SC 275, (ii) 1997 SCMR 1073, (iii) 2003 PLC (C.S.)
1249, (iv) 2000 SCMR 375, (v) 2000 SCMR 1374; (vi) 2000 SCMR 1200, (vii) 2003 PLC (C.S.) 490, and
(viii) 2006 PLC (C.S.) 766.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General while referring the written statement and the Inquiry report submitted that all the allegations levelled against the appellant in the charge-sheet were fully proved against him and despite sufficient opportunities to rebut the same appellant failed to do so. She submitted that full, fair and proper chance to defend himself was allowed to appellant which he availed and cross-examined the witnesses but he failed to extract any thing from them in his favour. She also argued that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are distinct in nature and under the law can go side by side and mere fact that Anti-Corruption authorities during investigation exonerated the appellant does not mean that no departmental disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against him. She contended that appellant was never exonerated by this Tribunal but his earlier appeal was allowed on the sole ground that no regular inquiry was conducted and the matter was remanded for conducting fresh inquiry which has been conducted wherein appellant was found guilty and was thus rightly awarded major penalty of removal from service and that appeal being without merit may be dismissed.
5. We have carefully considered the above submissions, thoroughly perused the case papers and have minutely gone through the case-law referred to by appellant's learned counsel. Contention that appellant was earlier exonerated by this Tribunal in, Appeal No,227 of 2001, has no force. As a matter of fact appellant's earlier appeal was allowed simply on the ground that allegations against him were of serious nature which he denied vehemently but no regular inquiry was conducted, as such, the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded for holding full- fledged fresh inquiry. It may be stated that in the said judgment no finding with regard to any allegation levelled against the appellant was given. Second contention that department was allowed 90 days to conclude the fresh inquiry but it was concluded after more than a year, therefore, the same is not sustainable, too has no force. Mere some delay in conclusion of inquiry per se is no ground to declare the inquiry proceedings as illegal or ultra vires. Appellant's next Contention that he was not provided proper chance to rebut the allegations and to defend B himself, also appears not correct. Perusal of the inquiry report reveals that at first two witnesses namely Messrs Irshad Ahmed Mani, Junior Inspector Mines and Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Deputy Director (Trade Union), Directorate of Labour, Sindh were called but appellant absented himself. Their statements were recorded but immediately thereafter appellant moved an application that since more than 90 days have been expired, therefore, the inquiry may be stopped, on which the Inquiry Officer reported the matter to the Administrative Department for seeking advice and on receipt of such advice, the Inquiry Officer again started the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer then summoned appellant who appeared on 25-3-2004 when the two witnesses namely Messrs Irshad Ahmed Jilani and Syed Nasir Ali Shah were also called, their statements were recorded and appellant was afforded chance to cross-examine them which he. Availed. Appellant then submitted application that he wanted to cross-examine another witness namely Mr. Ahsanullah Qureshi, Additional Director Labour, Hyderabad, who was called on 30-3-2004 and appellant was given chance to cross-examine which he availed and cross-examined the said witness. Appellant had also presented a written statement which too was placed on record. All the three witnesses produced record in presence of the appellant which was taken on record and the appellant was given full fair and proper chance to cross-examine the witnesses which he fully availed, therefore, appellant's contention that he was not 'afforded chance to rebut the allegations and to defend himself, has no force at all. The allegations against appellant are almost based upon the documentary evidence, copies which were supplied to the appellant but at no occasion he proved same as false.
Appellant's next contention that all the appointments made by him were approved by the higher authorities is C also not borne out from the record made available before us. Appellant has also not alleged any personal enmity or against any of his superiors. He also neither questioned/challenged the impartially of the Inquiry Officer nor said about any or animosity against the witnesses who recorded their statements before the Inquiry ,Officer. He has also not challenged the genuineness/authenticity of the documents placed before the Inquiry Officer. Mere saying that inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, the action was mala fide and he was unnecessarily dragged into such departmental disciplinary grounds, in the absence of any material in rebuttal, has no value at all. #TE#
6. Contention of learned counsel that case was earlier investigated by the Anti-Corruption authorities and appellant was exonerated, therefore, these departmental proceedings on the same set-of allegations are illegal and tantamount to double jeopardy, has no force. It is a well-settled proposition of law that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can go side by side and mere acquittal/exoneration from the criminal case/charge is no bar for initiation of disciplinary proceedings at the department level. In a case of Mir Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government, Ministry of Finance and others, 1996 SCMR 315, it has been observed that: #TE# "Since the departmental action against the petitioner was initiated independently of the criminal case, registered against him, his success in the criminal case would not nullify the outcome of the departmental action. In this view of the matter removal of the petitioner, which was ordered as a result of the departmental proceedings cannot be set aside on the score of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings."
' This view has been followed in a case of Inspector-General of Punjab v. Muhammad Tariq, 2001 PLC (C.S.) 725, wherein the Honourable Supeme Court has observed that: "The acquittal in criminal cases does not debar the departmental authorities to take action against the delinquent in accordance with law and Rules. Such acquittal does not give to delinquent a clean certificate of his absolvement from the departmental proceedings. Both the proceedings can go side by side as their nature is totally different."
' In another case of Government of N.W.-F.P. v. Aurangzeb, 2003 PLC (C.S.) 167, the Honourable Supreme Court, has held that:--- "The prosecution on criminal charge and departmental disciplinary proceedings was entirely different as one relates to the enforcement of criminal liability whereas the other is concerned with the service discipline, as such, acquittal on criminal charge had no bearing on disciplinary proceedings." ' regards contention that departmental proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law, although no such irregularity and illegality has been pointed out in the said proceedings, yet it is suffice to say, that the technicalities, which are the hallmark of the legal proceedings, cannot be pressed into service in judging the legality of the .Departmental proceedings. There may be some technical lapses on the part of any Inquiry Officer while conducting the disciplinary proceedings but if such lapses have not caused any material prejudice to the accused civil servant/employees, the same will not vitiate such proceedings or the order passed in consequence thereof. ##TE#Reference is invited to the case of Basharat Ali v. Director Excise, Lahore and others 1997 SCMR 1543. Similar is the .View taken in a case of Muhammad Riaz v. Government of Punjab and others, 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1496, wherein it has been held that: "Administrative authorities are free from observing the fetters and technicalities of judicial trial, because in such-like matters they are not acting judicially, nevertheless their decisions are required to be based on relevant considerations and material and not on suspicion and speculation alone."
7. To sum up, appellant was proceeded against departmentally on various serious allegations , a regular inquiry through an independent and impartial officer was got conducted who recorded the statements of the witnesses in presence of the appellant with an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which he availed, the Inquiry Officer after considering all the statements so also the documents produced during the inquiry proceedings submitted his report to the effect that appellant found guilty of all the charges. Appellant was then served with a final show-cause notice along with a copy of inquiry report and after giving him personal hearing he was awarded major penalty of removal from service. It is thus clear that all the mandatory requirements of law were compiled with so also the requirements of natural justice. The assessment of the material placed on the record made it clear that appellant was rightly found guilty. No, illegality or irregularity or serious omission has been pointed out n the departmental inquiry.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm opinion that the original order dated 1-1-2005 and appellate order dated 13-6-2005 being legal and proper call for no interference. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.Announced in open Court.