' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---The above titled two petitions, first one at the instance of Manzoor Hussain Sheikh and the other at the instance of Province of Sindh and others, arise out of common judgment dated 12-3-2012 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal Karachi ("the Tribunal") in Appeal No,20 of 2011, whereby service appeal of the petitioner Manzoor Hussain Sheikh was dismissed, however, with the modification in the quantum of his punishment, which was converted from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement.
2. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that petitioner Manzoor Hussain Sheikh, while working in the capacity of Sub-Registrar Kotdiji, District Khairpur during the year 2008 had received and registered thirty documents of conveyance of lands pertaining to Taluka Khirpur and Taluka Naro On this account a show cause notice was issued to him on 9-9-2008, with similar allegations constituting misconduct within the meaning of section 3 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000. The petitioner in his reply to the such show-cause notice did not dispute this fact, but sought indulgence on the plea that it was merely an irregularity, which was curable under section 87 of the Registration Act 1908. His reply to show-cause notice having been found unsatisfactory, the petitioner was issued final show-cause notice dated 26-9-2008 and eventually he was dismissed from service, vide order dated 9-10-2008, passed by Inspector- General of Registration Sindh. The order regarding his dismissal from service was challenged by the petitioner firstly by preferring departmental appeal before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue on 248-2008, which remained unattended, and thereafter on 8-3-2011 before the Tribunal in terms of section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Tribunal by its impugned, judgment taking into account the misconduct of the petitioner came to the conclusion that petitioner was rightly held guilty of misconduct, thus, the competent authority was fully justified in holding so.
However, while considering the quantum of punishment, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that looking to the facts and circumstances it was a case where his punishment ought to be reduced to compulsory retirement. Accordingly the punishment was modified from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement and the appeal was disposed of.
3. We have heard Mr. Shoa-un-Nabi, learned Advocate Supreme Courted for the petitioner in petition No,115-K of 2012 and perused the material placed on record. It is an admitted position that in violation of statutory provisions and rules regarding territorial limits the petitioner, while posted as Sub-Registrar Kotdiji, accepted thirty documents of conveyance pertaining to lands situated in Taluka Khairpur and Taluka A Naro and in his replay to the show cause notice he categorically conceded to this fact, but attempted to seek protection of section 87 of the Registration Act 1908, claiming his unbecoming misconduct as mere irregularity, which could be cured.
4. We have seen the said provision of law, which has also been discussed in paragraph No,9 of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, but found not relevant for determination of allegations of misconduct of the petitioner in the present case, as in case irregularity committed by the B petitioner was curable with the indulgence or discretion of higher authority it had not empowered him to do such illegal act, which is an admitted position.
5. Mr. Adnan Karim, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh on behalf of official respondents has also brought to our notice copy of order dated 28-3-2006 passed by Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh, to show that past service record of the petitioner is also full of mischief and misconduct and on several occasions he was punished by the competent authority, but this fact escaped the sight of the Tribunal, while passing its impugned judgment, which enabled the petitioner to take advantage of lesser punishment of compulsory retirement.
6. A perusal of material placed on record of these two connected petitions for leave to appeal reveals that it is not for the first time that petitioner Manzoor Hussain Sheikh was found guilty of misconduct and was awarded punishment of dismissal from service, but earlier too he had faced similar situation, when with the magnanimity and grace of the appellate authority his punishment was converted into stoppage of five annual increments. Thus, as evident from the appellate authority order dated 28-3-2006 (copy placed on record), his past conduct was also unbecoming of a Government Officer, but despite opportunity, he failed to improve it.
7. In the present case, before any final action against the petitioner, the competent authority has taken all legal and procedural steps to ensure fair opportunity, of hearing to the petitioner and even the petitioner in his reply has admitted his guilty constituting misconduct. Thus, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, we are not hesitant in taking into consideration such aspect of the case. More so, when it is based on authentic document produced by the department And not denied by the petition.
8. This being the position, we find no substance in civil petition for leave to Appeal No,115-K of 2012, filed by petitioner Manzoor Hussain F Sheikh, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. The other civil petition for leave to Appeal No,156-K of 2012, preferred on behalf of the Province of Sindh and others is also dismissed on similar facts and for the reason that, no question of law of public importance is involved in this petition, which may justify grant of leave to appeal in the matter.