1. This appeal has been filed under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the removal of the appellant from service.
2. Tire appellant was appointed as a junior clerk in the office of the Inspector General of Civil Hospitals, Sind, Karachi with effect from 14-2-1948. There-- after he was promoted as Senior Clerk, Assistant and finally Senior Superin--tendent in the office of the Director, Health Services Sind, Hyderabad. During the period from 23-12-1974 to 24-1-1975 he held the additional charge of the Administrative Officer as the incumbent had proceeded on leave.
3. There was large number of old and unserviceable record and the same was required to be disposed of one way or the other. So on 10-4-1975 the Assistant Director, Health Directorate, Hyderabad ordered the disposal of record by auction in presence of four persons of the Directorate. However, on 7-5-1975 the Director; Health Services, Sind at Hyderabad passed another order to destroy the record.
4. On the other hand the appellant removed the record on 7-5-1975 and was said to have sold for a sum of Rs. 900 to one Shahabuddin Mullah, without any authority or order from his superior. Not only that but he mis--appropriated the amount. He was therefore, charge-sheeted. He submitted the explanation denying the allegations. An enquiry was held and he was found guilty.
5. Consequently he was dismissed from service. He filed a departmental appeal which too was dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders he filed the present appeal in the Tribunal.
6. On perusal of the record and proceedings available with us as well as the enquiry proceedings placed before us by the learned Assistant Advocate --General and hearing the arguments we are of the view that this case does not call for interference as the charge against the appellant was fully established. To state briefly, the Enquiry Officer examined 5 witnesses. Out of them 3 are important and they are viz. Khan Bahadur peon, Mohd. Hussain peon and Shabir Hussain, Daftri of Health Directorate. They stated in clear terms that the appellant had removed the record on 7-5- 1975. The learned counsel has not been able to assail their evidence. It is not proved that they bore any grouse against the appellant. All the allegations or grievances by the appellant were directed against the Assistant Director, Health Services but beyond his bare word there is no evidence. He has chosen to snake false allegations in order to support his false defence.
7. Event looking to the statements of the appellant it is clear that he attempted to make prevaricating statements. His case as disclosed at the various stages is that on 10-4-1975 he was ordered by the Assistant Director to sort out and clean the old and unserviceable record as he was holding the additional charge of the post of Administrative Officer. The record was sorted out and on 7-5-1975 he put up a note for further order and made certain suggestions which were approved by the Director and the record was ordered to be destroyed. It was further stated that he put up another note on the same date that there was no place for burning the record and there was no such arrangement in the Government Offices and the fire, due to heavy wind, was likely to cause damage to the Government record and buildings. He further pleaded that in pursuance of that note he was told that he was already ordered to auction the old record in presence of Mr. A. L.
8. Mutalbani, Administrative Officer who had returned from the leave and was present on 7-5-1975.
9. He also stated that he did not know that how on that particular day i.e. 7-5-1975 Mullah Shahabuddin had come to office but later he came to realse the appearance of Mullah Shahabuddin in this picture, was organized and introduced by Shabir Hussain Daftri. He then, proceeded to say that Mullah Shahabuddin, in presence of the Administrative Officer and Shabir Hussain Daftri, offered Rs. 500 for the record. He also took the plea that since he ceased to hold the additional charge of the post of Administrative Officer and Mr. Mutalbani, who had resumed his duties, verbally allowed Mullah Shahabuddin to pack-the same in gunny bags and then it was loaded on camel carts and taken away. From 8-5-1975 he proceeded on leave due to sudden death of his brother's wife and remained out of headquarter till 10-5-1975. On return front casual leave he found that Shabir Hussain Daftri and Mr. Mutalbani had made mountain out of a mole in collusion with the Assistant Director who had issued the charge-sheet.
10. At this stage it may also be pointed out that the complaint was lodged with the Anti-Corruption Department and the record was secured from two private houses. The Anti-Corruption police sent the papers for departmental action which was, then, taken.
11. Apart from the evidence of the 3 witnesses who fully implicated the appellant for the removal of the record, it was conceded by the learned counsel of the appellant at the time of the arguments that on the basis of the evidence it could be said that the record was removed by the appellant but he pleaded that there was no evidence to show that the some was sold by him to Mullah Shahabuddin or anybody else and, therefore, the question of misappropriation of the amount did not arise. The simple answer to this is that the removal of the record from the office was unauthorised and without the knowledge of the superior officer. The appellant wan never directed to remove the record but he was told to destroy it or in the alternative as per earlier directions of the Assistant Director, to auction the record in presence of the Administrative Officer. The appellant failed to comply with any of these orders. It appears that intention of the Director to destroy the record was that sometime the old record contains confidential and secret documents, the disposal of those documents by sale may not be in the public interest.
12. Apart from the fact, that the removal was unjustified, the appellant nowhere pleaded that he removed the record for the purpose of destruction in order to save the office premises from the damage by fire on account of the wind. It is noteworthy that the record was not found at one place but at two different places. So by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the record was removed solely for the purpose of destruction.
13. Indeed, as the learned counsel pointed out, there was no direct evidence to show that the record was sold by the appellant but since the record was removed without any previous order or knowledge of the superior Officer it is reasonable to presume that the record was actually sold or it was removed for the purpose of sale and not for the purpose of destruction. This also finds support from the statement of the appellant that Mullah Shahabuddin offered to pay Rs. 500 for the purchase of the record and he was allowed to remove by the Assistant Director. This allegation was refuted by the Assistant Director who was examined at the instance of the appellant. So this tends to show that the appellant himself sold the record without the knowledge of his superiors. Even otherwise whether the record was sold or not, either of the action of the appellant amounted to misconduct and he was rightly charge-sheeted. To say the least, it is sad to notice that the unauthorized removal of the record by a Senior Officer was for extraneous consideration.
14. A grievance was also made that neither the persons from whose houses the record was secured, nor Shahabuddin, were examined to support the allegations made by the department. We are not inclined to draw any adverse inference as there was already evidence of 3 witnesses belonging to the Depart--ment and they had no grouse against the appellant. It was unnecessary to call them for evidence in the departmental enquiry. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which is material for reaching the safe con--clusions. Moreover even the appellant himself did not care to call them in defence. In fact he did not examine any witness except the Assistant Director who was examined at his request.
15. In result we find no force in the appeal and therefore, it is dismissed.