1. ' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner Sukkur Division, confirming the order of removal from service, passed against the' appellant, a Junior Clerk in Revenue Department, by the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur.
2. ' The appellant had joined the Revenue Department as Junior Clerk in Sukkur District on 20th November, 1915. During the period of 5 years he was found to be inefficient, unreliable and arrogant.
3. He used to proceed to his home town without obtaining any leave. He was in the habit of attending office late and 'leaving office at his sweet will. He was in the habit of blackmailing his colleagues and his superior officers by making applications against them. He was accordingly suspended from service by an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 7th June, 1980 and served with two charge-sheets containing the above allegations. On completion of the enquiry the Deputy Commissioner Sukkur issued a second show-cause notice to him containing the substance of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. On getting the explanation of the appellant he was ordered to be removed from service. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal before the Commissioner, Sukkur Division. The appellant was heard in person. The contention of the appellant before the Commissioner was that he had been victimized due to personal grudge as he had made applications against the steno and the staff of the Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the appellant had been found to be inefficient and guilty of misconduct and during his 5 years' service his A. C. Rs, showed that he was reported against from time to time by his superior officers.
4. He accordingly dismissed the appeal and maintained the punishment of removal.
5. ' It has first been argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the statement of allegations had not been supplied to the appellant alongwith the charge-sheet. The photostat copy no record shows that the statement of allegations were typed out on the same sheet of the paper below the charges.
6. It has then been argued that the report of the Enquiry Officer had not been furnished to the appellant. The appellant had however been served with a show-cause notice after the report of the Enquiry Officer was received, and this notice contained the gist of the report with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, No prejudice was, therefore, caused to the appellant by not furnishing him with the copy of the actual report.
7. ' It has lastly been argued that the evidence during the enquiry was scanty and the officers who had reported against him had not been examined. It was however open to the appellant to examine any witness in his defence including the Officers who had not been examined.
8. The appellant had a bad record throughout his service of 5 years and he had been found to be inefficient and guilty of misconduct. +b Accordingly we see no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.