1. MANZOORUL HAQ EFFENDI (MEMBER).--This appeal arose on the orders of respondent No.2, dated 16-6-1985, whereby the appellant Muhammad Moeen Senior Clerk, District Court (South) Karachi, was reverted as a Junior Clerk in the departmental appeal, decided by the Chief Justice, High Court of Sind against the order of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi, dated 27-11-1984, dismissing the appellant from service with immediate effect.
2. As disclosed in charge-sheet and statement of allegations, dated 26-6-1984, the allegations against the appellant were:-
(i) That he was habitual late-comer and usually attended the Office at 8.55 a.m. As reported by the Additional District and Sessions Judge VIIth Karachi on 8-5-1984.
(ii) That vide Memo. No. A/2952/84, dated 9-5-1984, he was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action under Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 should not be taken against him for not mending his ill habits of late coming despite warnings, to which he did not care to reply and submitted explanation for late coming on 9-5-1984.
3. (i.e) That he failed to issue summons, warrants, non-bailable warrants and notices to sureties, in Criminal Cases No.350/84, 390/84, 6811/76, 6282/76, 59/78, 826/79, 745/81,6716/76,638/76, 546/80, 325/77 and 93/82 fixed for hearing on 2-6-1984 as reported by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Karachi on 2-6-1984.
4. The appellant submitted the reply on 22nd July, 1984 to the charge-sheet, refuting all allegations.
5. Being not satisfied with his reply the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi ordered for departmental enquiry by Mr. Rajab Ali Leghari, Additional District and Sessions Judge. He held the enquiry in presence of accused official and gave his findings on 31-10-1984 to the effect that all the three charges were proved against the appellant, who was proposed to be given major punishment.
6. Again on 4th November, 1984, the appellant was served with final show-cause notice by the District Judge, Karachi. Consequently, the order of dismissal of the accused official was passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi on 27-11-1984.
7. Against the order of the District and Sessions Judge, the appellant submitted an appeal to the Chief Justice High Court of Sind on 26-12-1984 seeking a clean acquittal in the matter. The learned Chief Justice, High Court of Sind heard the accused and also perused his record. He has upheld the findings of the guilt recorded against him but reduced the sentence to reduction in his rank from the senior clerk to junior clerk for a period of three years commencing from16-6-1985.
8. Heard the arguments of the appellant who appeared in person and also counsel for the Government Mr. Rasheed Akhtar Qureshi at length and also perused the record relevant for the disposal of the appeal. In the course of his submissions before the Tribunal the appellant has made very forceful plea that he being the junior official has not received justice as the reporting officer and the enquiry officer were colleagues and, therefore, his submissions were not properly considered and he did not get justice. He has also raised the plea that before the above matter could be decided respondent No.1 issued transfer order of the appellant from the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII to Civil Nazarat and appellant's successor Mr. Muhammad Ali Memon also reported to take over the charge from the appellant, the then Presiding Officer of his Court requested respondent No.1 for detention of the appellant in his Court for the period of 10 days to complete the paper books of two murder cases and as such appellant had handed over the charge of criminal cases to his successor and remained busy in preparation of paper books of above two murder cases. All of the sudden he received charge-sheet by respondent No.1 which has been discussed above. The appellant has also assailed in his statement before the Tribunal That the respondent No.2 modified the penalty from dismissal to reversion on the basis of A.C.R's for the year 1974 to 1978 for which the appellant was never called upon to explain as such he has been condemned unheard. Finally he has also drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the enquiry officer did not apply his mind to the statement of the witness Mr. Hassan Zaki Serrishtedar of DistrictCourt who had even deposed before the enquiry officer that Appellant used to come to office in time and even some time he used to sit very late in the evening to complete his work.
9. On the other hand, the counsel for Government Mr.Qureshi has argued that the appellant was chronic late-comer and he was reprimanded for his late coming several times before issue of this charge-sheet. Almost all the Presiding Officers of the District Court had made observations of his behaviour and late coming. It was also brought to our notice that the appellant was appointed as junior clerk on 4-10-1972 and promoted as Senior Clerk as late on 1-2-1982, as he had unsatisfactory record. A number of clerks junior to him superseded him in promotion as his conduct and work remained unsatisfactory in the past. He has not been punctual in his duties since the date of his appointment. He was issued show-cause notice and Presiding Officer assessed him adversely but showed leniency towards the appellant.
10. The Tribunal feels that the appellant has been arrogant and his behaviour smacks of insubordination. He is challenging the judgment of senior judicial officers of the rank of District Judges and some of whom are now sitting Judges of the High Court of Sind. The Chief Justice of High Court of Sind has been lenient and reduced the sentence of dismissal from service to that of reversion from senior clerk to junior clerk for period of three years commencing from 16-6-1985.
11. Finally he has presented a Miscellaneous Application on 5th March, 1987 praying that the orders have been reserved in case without observing the mandatory provision of law, especially Rule No.17 of Sind Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 and it was incumbent that issues ought to have been framed and in case it was found necessary evidence ought to have been invited for the determination of issues, and prays it was also clear in the rule that in case a party affected by the affidavit/evidence appellant could have cross-examined the persons filing affidavit or giving evidence in addition to that. The net result is "audi alterm partem".
12. Since the arguments concluded on 3rd March, 1987 and the case was fixed for orders, we feel that the application cannot bell considered at this stage.
13. Upshot of the discussion is that there is word against word and we have no reason to disbelieve and discard the testimony of senior judicial officers who are occupying the seat of justice and to presume that they would victimize a clerk is figment of imagination. We do not see 'any reason to disagree with the findings of the Chief Justice of High Court of Sind and as such the appeal does not merit any consideration and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. A.E./115/Sr.S