JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN.- This appeal is directed against the original impugned order dated 12-3-2005 passed by the Chief Minister, Sindh/Competent Authority, awarding minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments to appellants.
2. In brief, facts of appellant's case are that he was proceeded against departmental under the Provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000), on the allegation that while posted as Secretary, S.I.T.E., he committed certain acts of misconduct. He was thus served with a show-cause notice dated 29-9-2004 issued by the Chief Secretary/Competent Authority, wherein it was alleged that:- "An inquiry was conducted by an inquiry committee headed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), with Secretary (G.A.) Service & General Administration Department, Member (L.U.) Board of Revenue and Secretary Information Technology Department as its members that has heid that during the process of balloting/allotment of 140 Industrial plots at S I T E. Super Highway, Phase-I & II, Karachi, the officials of S.I.E.T and (National Bank of Pakistan) dealt with the issue in V very unscrupulous manner resulting in a serious lapse. The result of balloting do not confirm to the criteria of rational and transparent working. You did not .Play role prudently, diligently and cautiously which triggers a feeling of deliberated mishandling resulting in highly objectionable result. Your role in the whole issue is more conspicuous."
In his simple reply, appellant denied the allegations and stated that he had no vital role in the balloting for the allotments of plots, as already mentioned by him in his statement before inquiry committee and that in fact the whole process of balloting was organized and managed by the National Bank of Pakistan. His reply was not found satisfactory. He was also given personal hearing by the Chief Minister/Competent Authority and ultimately by order dated 12-3-2005 appellant was awarded minor penalty of stoppage of annual increments for two years w.e.f. 1-12- 2005 and reprimanded. He challenged said order in his review petition dated 26-3-2005, which remained un responded. He filed the instant appeal praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 12-3- 2005/
3. Learned counsel for the appellants for the appellant argued that whole disciplinary proceedings initiated, conducted and concluded were in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of law. He stated that appellant was in 6-18. As such, the Chief Minister alone being the Competent Authority had to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, but in the instant case, the Chief Secretary by posing himself as Competent Authority issued 'the show cause notice dated 29-9-2004 while the penalty was awarded by the Chief Minister. Sindh in the capacity of Competent Authority, therefore, the proceedings being illegal and ultra virus, the impugned order is not sustainable. He further submitted that whole balloting process of allotment of industrial plots was conducted by the National Bank of Pakistan under the control of the Managing Director, S I T E. And appellant being Secretary had no role to. Play in the balloting process. Learned counsel also contended that on denial of the change, the regular inquiry was imperative but no such exercise was undertaken, therefore, on this score also, the impugned order is not maintainable. On the point of delay in filing appeal, learned counsel argued that appellant had no knowledge about change of law therefore, he after waiting for 90 days filed the instant appeal and that delay being under bona fide impression was neither international nor deliberate and the same may be condoned.
4. In rebuttal, learned Asstt. A.G. argued that there was delay of about a month in filing this appeal and under the law ignorance of law or ill advise of counsel are not ground for condonation of delay.
She argued that disciplinary proceedings were initiated purely in accordance with law. The Chief Secretary, Sindh who issued show- cause notice against appellant was authorized by the Chief Minister, therefore, there was no illegality. However, the penalty was awarded by Chief Minister himself being the competent authority. She added that appellant being the Secretary of S.I.T.E. Had vital role in whole process of balloting/allotment of 140 industrial plots, but he failed to perform his duties efficiently, diligently and prudently which resulted that there were serious lapses, as such, a Committee of four Members headed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Honr) was constituted which probed the matter, recorded the statements of officers/officials and thrashed the whole record of balloting, which showed a serialized list of applicants declared successful in the balloting mentioning 17 groups of consecutive numbers and name of the applicants, etc. In the end, she stated that appellant has already been dealt with leniently and minor penalty of stoppage of two increments was imposed against him and he is not entitled to any further leniency.
5. We have considered the above submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties also perused the case papers. Contention that Chief Secretary, Sindh was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings, as appellant was in B-18 and only the Chief Minister, Sindh, doing the appointing authority was competent to initiate the proceedings in the capacity of competent authority has no force. Under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000), the Chief Minister, Sindh is the competent Authority and he can authorize any officer or authority not being inferior in rank to the appointing authority prescribed for the post held by the person against whom action is proposed to be taken, to exercise the powers of competent authority under the Ordinance. Under Rule 4 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974, the Chief Secretary is the appointing authority of officers of B-18, therefore, the Chief Minister, Sindh had rightly authorized the Chief Secretary in exercise of such powers competently issued show cause notice to the appellant. . Subsequently, the Chief Minister being the original competent authority awarded minor penalty to the appellant. It is by now a well- settled law that a delegate by. Delegation his powers does not get denude of those powers. Nor the delegation implies a parting with powers by the persons who grants the delegation, but points rather to the conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself. In this regard reference is invited to Haji Muhammad Ismail's case (1987 MILD 2457). On merits of the case, it would be proper to reproduce paras. 20 and 29 of the Inquiry report, which are reproduced herein below:- "20. The Committee has noticed that M.D. S.I.T.E. Kept himself aloof and it was the, Secretary S.I.T.E.
Who was looking after the process of balloting at all levels -While he was not even a member of the Internal Committee constituted by the M.D. SITE. Director Finance who was the Convener of the Internal committee to look after the balloting is quite handicapped as he cannot read a single work without using a very powerful minifying glass which he keeps with himself. It is really strange how he is performing his official duties. It is apparent that while he was Convener, he did not enjoy any control on the working of the Secretary or other persons associated with the Committee. During the interview he concedes that he signed papers on advice of the Secretary. S.I.T.E.''
In concluding para. 29 of the inquiry report, it was concluded that:- "29. The above evidence an analysis leads to the conclusion that officials of NBP as well as S I T E have dealt with the issue of balloting ' non-seriously and in a very unscrupulous manner which resulted in a serious lapse and the result of the balloting do not conform to the criteria of rational and transparent working. They did not play their role prudently, diligently and cautiously which triggers a feeling of a deliberate mishandling resulting in highly objectionable results. As such officials of N B.P. As well as SI T E. Limited are responsible for the mishap. The role of Mr. Farrukh Saeed, VP. N.B.P. As well as Mr. Saqib Soomro, .Secretary S.I.T.E. Is more conspicuous."
6. Appellant has neither challenged the impartiality of the members of the Inquiry Committee nor alleged any malice or animosity against any of the member of the Inquiry Committee. It appears that inquiry was conducted in proper way and manner in which appellant has participated and his statement was also recorded. Besides, there is no denial of the fact that whole process of balloting was highly suspicious which find support from the fact that as many as 17 lots of consecutive number ranging from two consecutive numbers to 17 consecutive numbers for a total number of 119 plots out of 140 had been produced in the ballot which made the transparently of balloting dubious. The appellant being the Secretary SITE. In the circumstances, cannot be said that he had no role in the process of balloting of the high cost Industrial plots..
7. As regards, delay in filing the appeal, suffice it to say that mere ignorance of law is no excuse.
Under the provisions of Ordinance IX of 2000, the aggrieved civil servant can file appeal within 30 days of expiry of 60 days from the date of filing departmental appeal. The departmental appeal was presented in the office of Chief Minister, Sindh on 26-3-2005, the period of 60 days expired on 25-5-2005 and appellant ought to had file appeal before this Tribunal in-between 26-5-2005 to 25-6-2005, but the instant appeal was filed on 19-7-2005- i.e. After inordinate delay of 25 days. The appeal is thus time-barred.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits so also time-barred, is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
9. Announced in open Court.