1. ' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant had joined the Estate Office, Government of Pakistan as a Clerk and he was thereafter transferred to Swedish-Pakistani Institute of Technology, Landhi as an Assistant about the year 1970. In 1978 he was promoted on ad hoc basis as Accounts Officer in the Institute in his own pay scale till the recommendee of the Sind Public Service Commission could be made available. The proposed qualifications for the post included possession of 'Bachelor's degree'. In case no official with this academic qualification was available then the conquer ion of 'Bachelors degree' could be relaxed. The appellant submitted a photostat copy of his B.A.
2. Certificate for appointment to this post showing that, he had passed the B.A. Examination from Dacca University in the year 1955. A notification was then issued and published in the Sind Governinent Gazette of May 28, 1974 appointing Mr. Kbawaja ' A. Qaiser as Accounts Officer in National Pay Scale No,
16. On verification of his service record it was detected that in the year 1955 the appellant was in service in West Pakistan and he had not proceeded on any leave for appearing in the B.A. Examination in East Pakis(Ltn. Enquiries were therefore, made from the Registrar, Dacca University and it was found that no such person with seat number etc. Mentioned in the provisional B.A. Certificate had appeared at the B.A. Examination of Dacca University in the year 1955. It was, therefore, presumed that the said provisional B.A.
3. Certificate produced by the appellant purporting to have been issued by the Principal Quaid-i- Azam College, Dacca was a forged document. On the basis of this forged provisional B.A.
4. Certificate appellant had also obtained admission as a graduate candidate to `Diploma in Commerce' Course of the Government Institute of Commercial Education, Karachi. He had also obtained Post-Graduate Diploma from Institute of Business Administration, University of Karachi in Fundamentals of Accounting.
5. ' The Secretary Department of Education, Government of Sind, accordingly issued notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service for defrauding the Government by furnishing a forged and fictitious degree certificate. In his explanation the appellant adopted the plea that he had received the appointment in Grade-16 by promotion and not because of his B.A. Degree qualification and that the alleged qualification of B.A. May be deleted from his record. The order of the Authority dated 31st March, 1977 was then communicated to the appellant by the Education Secretary removing the appellant from Government service. The appellant filed a departmental appeal before the Chief Secretary who allowed him two months time to produce reliable documentary evidence in support of his claim that he had passed B.A.
6. From Dacca University in the year 1955. This period was extended further by two months more. The appellant could not however produce the certificate and his appeal was accordingly dismissed on 8th November, 1980. Thereafter on 4th December 1980 the appellant preferred this appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
7. ' In has been argued by Mr. Manzar Ahmed that the appellant had not obtained the initial appointment on the basis of the degree certificate and he had received the promotion on .Account of his long experience and service record. That he had not used the degree certificate and had produced the case on being asked to do so by the Government. Even at the stage of this appeal the appellant was given the option to rebut the presumption of the provisional certificate being forged by arranging to obtain the duplicate B.A. Degree certificate from Dacca but he declined the option. The copies of the correspondence with the Registrar of the Dacca University show that no such candidate having that seat number appeared for the examination from Dacca University.
8. ' The question involved is not that the appellant had not possessed the requisite academic qualification for the post. If he had been honest, the Government might have passed orders relaxing the requirements of B.A. Degree in his case. But a person who resorts to such practice of using a forged B.A. Certificate for obtaining the appointment in grade-16, cannot be considered a fit person to be retained in service in Education Department on account of his depravity of character. The appellant not only obtained this job by dishonest means but he committed fraud and obtained admissions in Post-Graduate Diploma Courses by commission of similar fraud. He does not, therefore, deserve any leniency or reduction of penalty on compassionate grounds.
9. ' In the result the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.