RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.- Petitioner/ a former Excise and Taxation Officer, since superannuated om attaining the age of retirement with effect 7.12.2002, challenged departmental order dated 27.9.2005, being a follow up action in pursuance of the earlier order dated 20.1.2003 before the Sindh Service Tribunal. His appeal has been dismissed as being incompetent vide order dated 19.4.2006 impugned in this petition for leave. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. Precise facts appear to be that during his incumbency as Excise and Taxation Officer, Karachi- South, petitioner unauthorisedly and unlawfully challenged the category/classification of various Cinema houses thereby causing financial loss of Rs. 1,26,000/- to the Provincial Government up to 30.6.2002. As per the provisions of schedule to the Sindh Entertainments Duty Act, 1958, he was not competent to effect such change of category. An enquiry was ordered against him. Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report finding him guilty of the charge. Accordingly a final show-cause notice was issued to him vide office memo dated 8.10.2002 but since he superannuated on 7.12.2002 competent authority instead of inflicting any other punishment and taking a compassionate view directed him to effect recovery of short recovered tax from the respective Cinema houses with the active assistance and cooperation of the sitting officials of the Entertainment Wing of the Excise, and Taxation department.
3. As despite the lapse of more than two years, eight months he failed to effect any recovery he was called upon to reimburse the amount of loss occasioned on his account. Petitioner challenged this order before the Tribunal but without any success.
4. Main consideration, which weighed with the Tribunal, appears to be that the petitioner was fully satisfied with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of the charge and to effect recovery with the assistance of incumbent officials of the Excise and Taxation Department. Ln the opinion of the Tribunal, such order had already attained finality and could not be reopened, lt was only by way of follow up action that the petitioner was called upon to pay up the amount short recovered by him owing to the change of category of Cinema houses and non-recovery of amount.
5. After hearing Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned A.R for the petitioner at some length and examining the record, we are of the view that since the petitioner did not challenge the initial order finding him responsible for causing financial loss to the Provincial Government, he cannot get away after the passage of more than two years by saying that he was unaware of the law or that the earlier order could not be challenged before the Tribunal. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this view of the petitioner. The view taken by the Tribunal in non-suiting the petitioner in the facts and circumstances is neither unreasonable nor unfair or against the settled principles of law. There is, thus, no ground for interference with the impugned judgment, which appears to be justified by the circumstances of the case. While declining leave to appeal it may be observed that it would still be open to the petitioner to take steps for effecting recovery and making good the loss for which he was found responsible.
6. Resultantly, petition is dismissed and leave declined.