1. ' This service appeal is directed against the order passed by Mr. Rafiq Hussain Agha, Commissioner, Sukkur Division dated 19th December, 1980 dismissing the departmental appeal of Munshi Maqbool Ahmad Kazi, ex-Tapedar against his removal from service.
2. ' The facts in brief are that there were two separate charge-sheets served on the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur. In the first charge-sheet which forms the subject-matter of this appeal, the charges were that the appellant was found to be careless and negligent in recoveries of land revenue. That he was given personal warning by the Mukhtiarkar but he deserted his duties and disappeared from his beat. As this amounted to misconduct, he was called upon to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet within fourteen days. The statement of, allegations was also appended to this charge-sheet alongwith the list of witnesses. The appellant did not submit his explanation nor did he take part in the departmental enquiry in respect of desertion of duty, etc. The report was submitted under No, 583 of 1978, dated 22nd March, 1978 by the Enquiry Officer/Assistant Commissioner, Mirpur Mathelo. The case was remanded by the Deputy Commissioner for complying with legal formalities and the final report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner under No, 711, dated 7th April, 1979. The Deputy Commissioner on this report made a provisional order which in fact amounted to show-cause notice giving the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report that the appellant had been held guilty of all the charges levelled against him. He was also informed to explain within fourteen days as to why he should not be removed from service. The file shows that no explanation to this show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant and, therefore, a final order was passed by Mr. Tasnim Ahmed Siddiqi, Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur under his No, 8959, dated 8th November, 1979 that looking to the gravity of the charges and attitude of the accused official not caring to furnish any explanation, the final order was passed removing him from service with immediate effect.
3. ' When this order was served on the appellant he submitted a review petition to the Deputy Commissioner that he had submitted his explanation on 4th August, 1979 jointly in two cases and that the then Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur Mr. Ghiasuddin Junejo after going through the explanation had vacated the removal order on 7th August, 1979. That through mistake and oversight the office had placed only one charge-sheet before the Deputy Commissioner leaving the other case untouched. That the order may accordingly be set aside and both the cases be reopened. No order was passed on this review petition as the appellant had already filed his departmental appeal before the Commissioner, Sukkur Division. The departmental appeal was heard by Mr. Rafiq Hussain Agha, Commissioner, Sukkur Division and the same was dismissed by an order dated 19th February, 1980 holding that the appellant did not furnish his reply to the charge-sheet and even failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, proceeded ex parte and gave findings of guilty in respect of the charges. The Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur then issued show-cause notice but the appellant did not submit his reply within 14 days. The appellant was accordingly removed from service on 8th November, 1979. The appeal was heard and disposed of on merits and the order of removal was confirmed.
4. ' It has been argued by Mr. Moula Bux Bhatti on behalf of the appellant that the explanation to the show-cause notice submitted in respect of the other charge-sheet was in respect of both the cases and the order of removal which was set aside would also, therefore, apply in both the cases.
5. The other case in which Mr. Ghiasuddin Junejo, Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of removal and substituted it by stoppage of one increment, pertained to entirely different charges that he disobeyed the transfer order from Tapa Pano Akil to Tapa Sadhuja, dated 19th September, 1974 without handing over charge to his substitute. He deserted from duties taking away the Government record of Tapa Pano Akil with himself whtch was not returned till the date of the charge-sheet. That he had thus defied the orders of his superiors and absonded. The original record produced by the representative of the department shows that only this case was put up before Mr. Ghiasuddin Junejo, the then Deputy Commissioner who passed provisional orders as under :- "Process on file. Vacate the removal order. Ghiasuddin.
6. 7/8 ' This was marked to A. D. C. I. Thereafter a further order was passed by Mr. Ghias Junejo and the facts stated in the order clearly show that this case pertains to appellant's desertion from duty and taking away Government record with himself unauthorizedly and defiance to orders of his superiors. The explanation furnished by the Tapedar was considered to be evasive. However a lenient view was taken and his one increment was stopped with cumulative effect. This order No, 7340 of 1979 is dated 10th September, 1979.
7. ' It is accordingly clear from the record that there were two separate cases against appellant Maqbool Ahmed Kazi, Tapedar. There were two separate charge-sheets containing separate allegations. Only one case pertaining to desertion of duty and taking away the record was dealt with by Mr. Ghiasuddin Junejo, the then Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur and the other case was put up on his transfer before his successor Mr. Tasnim Ahmed Siddiqui after lapse of three months. In the case before Mr. Ghiasuddin Junejo the penalty was reduced from removal from service to stoppage of increment but in the case before Mr. Tasnim Ahmad Siddiqui, the penalty was not reduced and removal from service was maintained. It is rather unfortunate that an attempt was made to mix up the two cases to show that the order passed by Mr. Ghiasuddin Junejo was an order that covered the case which was the subject-matter of this appeal also merel because the sentence was reduced in one appeal is no ground for presuming that the other appeal was also taken into consideration and the sentence w likedwise reduced in that appeal also. The order of the Commissioner, Sukkdur Division is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.