1. ' MUSEITAK AL! KAZ1 (C1iA1RMAN)-The appellant had joined the Regional Directorate of Food Karachi as a Junior Clerk in the year 1960. By an order dated 4th July, 1978 the appellant was placed under suspension by Mian Bahadur Shah, Deputy Director Food, Karachi Region and he was served by the Assistant Director Food as Authorized Officer with a show-cause notice under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The penalty proposed was one of the major penalties provided under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for gross misconduct.
2. ' The statement of allegations showed that the appellant was in the habit of sending applications to Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'C'. Minister of Food, Chief Secretary, making vile allegations and insinuations against his superior officers particularly the Deputy Director Food, The appellant also supplied information from official correspondence to daily `Jasatat' in support of his insinuations and allegations above referred to.
3. ' The appellant furnished his explanation admitting the first charge of sending his complaints against superior officers direct to the highest executive suthorities and denied having sent copies of official documents to daily 'Jasarat'.
4. ' The Assistent Director Food Mr. M. H. Awan as the Authorized Officer after perusal of the explanation found that the allegations made by the appellant against higher Officers of the department were provable, and only after each and every allegation made by the appellant was duly investigated and pi oved to be false, could Mr. Niazi be held liable for making vile accusations.
5. Regarding the next charge of supplying information to daily 'jasarat' the Authorized Officer rewarked that the relevant files were not in custody of the appellant and he had no access to then.
6. That it was, therefore, difficult to hold that the appellant Mr. Niazi was the source, for supply of this information. The Authorized Officer accordingly exonerated Mr. Muhammad Hanif Niazi the appellant and called upon the Authority to re-instate him.
7. ' The Deputy Director Food and the Authority, found that the Authorized Officer was not competent to dispose of the case himself, since major penalty had been proposed to be awarded in the show- cause notice. He accordingly declined to accept the recommendations of the Authorized Officer and passed orders dismissing the appellant from Government Service.
8. ' The appellant then filed a departmental appeal to the Director of Food, Government of Sind, Karachi against his dismissal. Mr. Noor Ahmad Shah, Director of Food dismissed the appeal by an order dated 14th July, 1979, on the ground that the appellant had admitted having made applications direct to the higher authorities against the Deputy Director Food, Karachi. In these applications he had admittedly made allegations of corruption, nepotism and embezzlement against the Deputy Director Food, Karachi. That such conduct besides being against official decorum was also in contravention of the Government Servants Conduct Rules. That the appellant had made it his past time to address applications to the Chief Martial Law Administrator and Martial Law Administrator Zone 'C' against the higher officials of the Food Department, The motive for making these applications according to the Director of Food was that the appellant had obtained three Ration Depots for his close relatives including fiis brother. He wanted one more depot for his nephew who was a minor., This was refused. He then started the campaign of black mailing, vilification and character assassination.
9. ' The main point urged by Mr. Marlzoor Ali Khan on bc'ualf of inc appellant in this case is that the Assistant Director Food as ti : Authorized Officer had exonerated the appellant without recommending any punishment. He could accordingly pass such orders himself and the Authority could not interfere.
10. ' The procedure adopted in this case was under rule 5 (3) dispensing with the enquiry. The proposed penalty had to be mentioned in the show-cause notice and in this case it was proposed that major penalty under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules would be imposed. Under rule 5 (4) (b) the Authorized Officer had to forward the case to the Authority alongwith the charge and statement of allegations served on the accused, the explanation of the accused and his own recommendations regarding the penalty to be imposed. It was for the Authority to pass such orders as it may deem proper. The Authorized Officer had, therefore, gone out of his way to exonerate the appellant himself and had even sent copies of such order to the appellant and various authorities, instead of forwarding th record, with his recommendations to the Authority for final orders. The arguments advanced by the Authorized Officer would also appear to be extraordinary, that the allegations made by the appellant against his Officers being 'provable, no action could be taken against the appellant unless those allegations had been investigated and found to be false. The Appellate Authority had rightly held that the very act of making these allegations against his superior Officers direct to the highest authorities, was an act of indiscipline and insubordination, and as this was an admitted fact, no further proof was necessary in that respect.
11. ' In the result the order of the Appellate Authority is maintained and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.