MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant, Mr. F.M. Sohail Afghani, was working as Assistant in the S&GAD, Government of Sindh when he was served with the show-cause notice dated 22-12- 1980, under Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the said rules). As disclosed in the said show-cause notice, it was issued on receipt of the report from HTPLG & RD Department, which was to the following effect: "Mr. Sohail Afghani was found to be careless and unwilling in his work, irregular and disobedient. He was also in the habit of remaining absent from duty unauthoriscdly, as he did for the period from 9-6-1980 to 14-9-1980. He was in the habit of sending certificates from private practitioners in support of his leave applications and did not obey orders when asked to appear before the Medical Superintendent, Sindh Government Hospital, Karachi."
2. In his explanation dated 1st January, 1981 the appellant vehemently denied the above allegations.
According to him he always tried his best to satisfy his superiors by his hard work and honesty. He denied that he ever produced medical certificates of private Medical Practitioners in support of his leave applications on the ground of ill-health. He also took the plea that as per revised Leave Rules notified by the Finance Department on 5th June, 1979 leave applied for on medical grounds should not be refused, if it was due and admissible to the civil servant. However, his explanation was found unsatisfactory. Consequently he was punished by the order of the Additional Secretary (Services), dated 18th February, 1981 whereby he was not only censured but also his two annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect. Against this order, the appellant preferred departmental appeal dated 16th March, 1981 to the Chief Secretary. Pending disposal of the said appeal, the impugned order was amended by corrigendum issued on 20th September, 1981. Thereupon the appellant repeated the departmental appeal on 16th October, 1981. As is clear from his memo. of appeal: "Due to absolute silence on the part of S&GAD", he sent reminder to the said department for decision of his appeal, to which he received the S&GAD's letter dated 1-12-1988, on 6-12-1988 intimating him that his appeal dated 16-3-1987 was already considered and rejected vide S&GAD's letter dated 21-9-1982 addressed to the Section Officer (General) Zakat, Ushr and Social Welfare Department, endorsing a copy thereof to the appellant. It was after receiving the said intimation that the appellant came to this Tribunal in the present appeal which he filed on 4-1-1989. The appeal was admitted to regular hearing to final decision on the question of limitation. The appellant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned penalty imposed on him.
As the appellant was unrepresented, he submitted his arguments personally. We heard the learned Government counsel on behalf of the official respondent. We also went through the relevant documents and carefully considered their impact on the case.
3. The allegations listed against the appellant in the show-cause notice, can be divided, for the sake of convenience into two parts. One important part of the allegations is with regard to the appellant's unauthorised absence from 9-6-1980 to 14-9-1980. It was not disputed that during the said period of his unauthorised absence, the appellant was posted in the Rural Development Wing of the Housing. Town Planning, Local Government and Rural Development Department. The disciplinary action was initiated against him after his transfer from the said Department to the S&GAD. He was relieved from the above Department by order of the Director-General, Rural Development Department, dated 12th October, 1980. In the said order the appellant's absence from duty from 9-6-1980 to 14-9-1980 was treated as break in his service. In this connection our attention was invited to the S&GAD's order No, E&A (S&GAD)2(152)/84/E-2, dated 1st December, 1988 which is reproduced in verbatim as under: "(I) Housing, Town Planning, Local Government and Rural Development Department (RD Wing)
Order No, SO(G) 1.72/79(RD), dated 12-10-1980 treating the absence from duty w,e,f, 9-6-1980 to 14- 9-1980 as break in service in favour of Mr. F.M. Sohail Afghani, Assistant is hereby withdrawn.
(II) Mr. F.M. Sohail Afghani, Assistant is hereby allowed leave on full pay, w,e,f, 9-6-1980 to 14-9-1980 on medical grounds, subject to title.
He shall be paid for the intervening period by the department where he is presently working."
4. It would appear from the above order, that the earlier order passed eight years back on 12th October, 1980, treating the disputed period from 9-6-1980 to 14-9-1980 as break in the appellant's service was withdrawn and the appellant was instead allowed leave on medical ground for the said period. In the meantime the appellant was punished inter alia on the ground of his unauthorised absence for the disputed period by the impugned order dated 18th February, 1981 and his departmental appeal from that order was also dismissed on 21-9-1982. However, with passing of the order dated 1st December, 1988 reproduced above, the part of the show-cause notice relating to the appellant's unauthorised absence from 9-6-1980 to 14-9-1980 became infructuous and hence stood excluded from the show-cause notice. Consequently the punishment inflicted on the appellant would be considered to be grounded only on the other part of the show- cause notice. The other part of the notice speaks of the appellant being "careless and unwilling in his work, irregular and disobedient".
5. As stated above, the appellant has refuted these allegations. Moreover they are patently vague and general in nature. Since no regular enquiry has been held, the said allegations were not substantiated by any specific and concrete material. As such no penalty could be imposed on the basis of such uncorroborated and vague allegations.
6. In view of the above discussion the appellant has obviously a good case on merits. But unfortunately his appeal is hit by limitation and it is hopelessly time-barred. As pointed out above the appellant had preferred departmental appeal on 16-3-1981 against the impugned order dated 18-2-1981. As provided in section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973, he had option to file appeal before this Tribunal without waiting for decision of the departmental appeal. Admittedly he did not avail this option. Instead he preferred to wait for the decision of the appellate authority. The said decision came on 21st September, 1982. In this connection reference be made to the S&GAD's letter No, E&A (S&GAD) E-2/PF(64)/78, dated 21st September, 1982 to the Section Officer (Gen.)
Zakat, Ushr and S.W. Department. It reads as under: No, E&A(S&GAD)E-2/PF(64)78 Government of Sindh Services & General Administration Department Karachi, dated the 21st September, 1982.
To The Section Officer, Zakat, Ushr & S.W. Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi.
Subject:- Appeal Reference your U.O. No, PZA/PF/38/81/2405, dated 14th June, 1982 on the subject noted above.
2. Appeal of Mr. F.M. Sohail Afghani, Assistant, has been considered and rejected and it will not be possible for this department to entertain further representation from him on the subject. He may please be informed accordingly.
Sd/- (S.M. GHIAS) Section Officer (General) for Additional Secretary (Services)
Copy to Mr. F.M. Sohail Afghani, Assistant, Zakat, Ushr and Social Welfare Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi.
Sd/- (S.M. GHIAS) Section Officer (General) for Additional Secretary (Services) Ph. 512071/27
7. The perusal of the above letter clearly indicates that not only the departmental appeal filed by the appellant was decided but also direction was given to the Section Officer of the Department where the appellant was then posted to inform the latter about the decision. It is also clear from the letter that a copy thereof was endorsed to the appellant himself. Despite the above position, the appellant has raised a plea that he came to know about rejection of his departmental appeal first time by the S&GAD's letter dated 1st December, 1988, addressed to him in reply to his reminder issued on 1041-1988. This seems to be absurd on face of it. The above order of rejection of the appellant's departmental appeal was sent not only to the Department where the appellant was posted but also to the appellant himself. It was rather surprising that neither of them received the order. Unless some mischief had been played, it was simply not delivered to the Secretariat Department. No plea of any such mischief has been raised by the appellant. Assuming that the order sent to both places was misplaced in the transit, still as soon as it was passed, the appellant must have come to know about it through one or the other source particularly when the appellant having served in the S&GAD for quite sometime must have a lot of contacts in the said Department.
If this was also not true, it was beyond comprehension that the appellant would silently keep waiting for such a long period of six to seven years without bothering to find out as to what had happened to his departmental appeal. Had he made a little move in this direction, he would have immediately come to know about the result of his appeal even if it was not intimated to him .in time.
8. The appellant has produced copies of a number of reminders, obviously in an attempt to impress the Tribunal that he had been vigilant all along. His last reminder dated 10-11-1988 had admittedly brought the requisite response from the S&GAD in the form of its letter dated 1st December, 1988. If his latest reminder was replied, so promptly, we see no reason why the S&GAD remained indifferent rather callous with regard to his earlier reminders allegedly sent by him during the period between 1982 and 1988. As disclosed in para. 10 of the memo. of appeal, the appellant has referred to only one reminder for expediting the decision of his departmental appeal.
Accordingly copies of several other reminders produced by him were manifestly afterthought. Their existence was inconsistent with appellant's own plea of having sent a single reminder which admittedly evoked the S&GAD's reply on 6-12-1988.
9. From the above discussion we are convinced that the appellant had received the timely intimation about the rejection of his departmental appeal. It seems to us that he did not bother to take further action perhaps because the penalty imposed upon him was minor and he could easily ignore it. It was at later stage that he seemed to have realised the wisdom of challenging the impugned order. Since by the time he made up his mind to come to this Tribunal, the appeal had become time-barred, he had no alternative but to contrive a device as he actually did that he raised plea that he received the intimation about rejection of his departmental appeal only on 6- 12-1988. This was simply unbelvable. It was obvious that the appellant made such a crude attempt with a view to have the period of limitation enlarged. We are not prepared to put any premium on his undesirable and ugly act. Since appeal is hopelessly time-barred, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.