1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Mahmood Zada was a Chowkidar in the Ojha Institute of Chest Diseases when his services were terminated by order of Director of the said Institute, dated 26-3-1986. In this appeal he has impugned the said order.
2. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government counsel, appeal was dismissed by short order dated 19-3-1987 for reasons to follow. Following are the reasons in support of the said short order.
3. While the appellant was working as Chowkidar in the Ojha Institute of Chest Diseases, Karachi, he was served with a charge--sheet on 20-3-1986. The relevant allegations made against him in the charge-sheet are to the following effect:- "In the morning of 11th March, 1986 while Miss Zahida Parween, Staff Nurse of this Institute was going to her house, after performing her night duty you gave her a letter personally on the gate which was written by you in the name of the aforesaid Staff Nurse. The language of your letter is highly objectionable. This sort of undesirable act on your part constitutes breach of service rules- discipline and amounts to misconduct."
4. The record shows that following his exit from service the appellant addressed two letters, one, dated 24-4-1986 another, dated 22-7-1986, to the Director Health Services, Hyderabad, Sind complaining against the arbitrary termination of his services. However, he preferred formal appeal to the same authority only on 13-9-1986, which was dismissed by order, dated 10-11-1986 as being time-barred. He has filed the preset service appeal on 14-12-1986, obviously after the disposal of his departmental appeal.
5. At the outset, it may be pointed out that as required by clause (a) of the proviso to section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the aggrieved civil servant cannot file appeal before the Tribunal before exhausting departmental remedy available to him by way of preferring appeal or application for review or representation to the competent departmental authority as the case may be. In the instant case, the admitted position is that appellant, filed departmental appeal on 13-9- 1986 which as pointed out above, was rejected as time-barred. The prescribed period for filing such appeal as provided' in section 23 of Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 is 30 days. Although the impugned order was passed on 26-3-1986, yet the appellant took nearly six months in filing the departmental appeal and as such his appeal was rightly rejected as time-barred. In view of this position, we hold that as if departmental appeal was never filed. Consequently the present appeal is hit by the proviso to section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 referred to above and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable on that score.
6. Coming to the merits of the case the learned counsel for the appellant complained that proper procedure laid down in the Sind Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973 has not been followed and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. The perusal of the said rules reveals that the Authorised Officer concerned has two alternatives open to him; namely, first to give show-cause notice to the accused civil servant without ordering detailed inquiry or second, serve him with charge-sheet and statement of allegations and order full-dress enquiry. In the present case the appellant was first served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations which showed that initially the Authorised Officer was contemplating a detailed inquiry against the appellant.
7. However, after the appellant submitted his reply, no inquiry was held but after giving him personal hearing, the impugned order was passed against the appellant. In other words the Authorised Officer obviously changed his mind and dispensed withholding of the detailed inquiry. The question arises whether he could do so. The reply furnished by the appellant contains his frank admission of the charge that he had written the alleged ugly letter to the Staff Nurse, Zahida Parween. With such admission on the part of the appellant nothing remained to be investigated or inquired into. This was precisely the reason why detailed inquiry was dispensed with. In such a case the charge-sheet served on the appellant could be regarded as show-cause notice by which he was conveyed the charge against him. Therefore, we see no violation of any rule.
8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was forced to give the so-called admission allegedly given by him and it was not the result of his free will. He further submitted that appellant's signature was forcibly obtained on his alleged reply of admission. There is no doubt that appellant admits that the signature on the reply to the charge- sheet is his. The only point that falls for our decision is whether he was free in subscribing the said signature or some pressure was brought to bear on him. First of all we see no reasons why the appellant should have been coerced to sign the reply on the charge-sheet. No one much less his superior officers were interested either in his admission or his signature thereon. If that had been the case, he would have taken such plea in his departmental appeal. But he has made no such grievance in the departmental appeal. In the earlier letters, dated 20-4-1986 and 22-7-1986 addressed by him to the Director Health Services, Hyderabad, he has made vague allegations that he was forced to put his signature at the instance of one Mir Hassan, Steward. There is no indication on record that the said Mir Hassan was at all interested in the case or bore any grudge against him. On the contrary in the letter, dated 24-4-1986 the appellant admitted his mistake of having written the letter to Zahida Parween, Staff Nurse. The said letter as well as the subsequent letter, dated 22-7-1986 written by him to the Director further show as if the said Zahida Parween, Staff Nurse was in love with him and it was due to her such attitude that he had developed relations with her. It is further stated by the appellant in the letter, dated 22-7-1986 that Zahida Parween had desired him to write a love letter to her so that she would give him the reply of that letter. Thus, from both these communications it is clear that appellant had actually written letter to said Zahida Parween, Staff Nurse. In the face of such admission, it is difficult for us to believe that he was forced to sign the reply to the charge-sheet which also contained nothing but his admission and regrets about having written love letter to the said Nurse.
9. A.E./113/Sr.S