1. JUDGMENTMOBEEN AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER.-The Appellant Munshi Gumanc and Munshi Chchansingh both have come in appeal against the impugned orders dated 23.7.1988 passed by .The Deputy commissioner, Tharparkar, whereby they were dismissed from service with immediate effect. The relevant back ground giving rise to this appeal is that both the appellants W'erc serving as Tapcdars in District Tharparkar when on 22.6.1988, the Deputy Commissioner Tharparkar separately served thejn with the show cause notices holding them guilty of preparation of fake and fraudulent sale document in favour of some unknown purchasers. The show cause notice served on appellant Munshi Gumanc read as under:"That you in collusion with Munshi Chehansingh tapedat; of tapa Hiral put signature of comparison on the false and fcbricated copy pf P.F.No.X V Book No.224, entry No.12 of deh 4-Hiral on 11.4.1988 regarding fraudulently sale of S.No. 65,66,67,68,72 and 73 admeasuring 96-00 acres belonging to one Amir Khan s/o Gul Bag Rajar whole rupees in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the un-known purchaser, but in fact the said S.Nos were not on the khata of the above named khatedar on 2.12.1987 as shown in the copy of P.F.XV above.
2. That you intentionally and fraudulently compared the above said copy of P.F. No.XV without seen and verification of the original P.F XV without seen and verification of the original P.F No.XV of Book No.224 which indicates your mis-chicf.
3. That you did with will and mala fide intention in order to give wrongful gain to the purchaser and to give wrongful loss to the r$al owners.
4. That by the reasons of above you appear to be quilt of misconduct/corruplion/in- cfficicncy/negligcnce in the discharge of your official duties and have thus rendered your self liable for award of any major penalty under the Sind Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1973."
2. The Show cause Notice issued against appellant Munshi Chehansingh pertained to the same cause of action yet slightly differed in the following manner: "That on 11.4.1988, you have prepared and got issued a false and fcbricated copy of P.F.No.XV Book No.224, entry No.12 of deh-4 Hiral, Tapa Hiral showing fraudulently sale of S.Nos 65,66,67,68,72 and 73 admeasuring 96-00 acres, owned by Amir Khan s/o Gul Beg Rajar whole Rupees, in the sum of Rs. 1.50,000/- and later on rubbed off the name of purchaser written in column No.8, But in fact the said S Nos were not on khata of the above named khatedar on 2.12.1987 as shown by you."
3. Both the appellants replied the showcause notice on the same date on 25.6.1988 and raised different pleas of defence. The Deputy Commissioner, 'T'l 1-- -ihf'ir renlies unsatisfactory as well as on pleading. Guilty by the accused officials dismissed the appellants by tow different orders dated 23.7.1988 placed as Annexures A-3 and B-l on their respective files.
4. However it would be relevant to reproduce the concluding paras of these orders for their proper appraisal: "He (Munshi Gumane) furnished his explanation in response of showcause notice in which he pleaded his guilt and requested for excuse. He was heard in person on 19.7.1988. He again admitted his guilt and requested for pardon him. Thus the charge which is of serious nature stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The gravity of offence is of serious nature. It was all done by him with ulterior motive and mala fide intention. He is therefore found guilty of gross mis- conduct/corruption and is liable for major penalty under the (E & D)Rules, 1973. I am satisfied not to hold regular enquiry as he has admitted his guilt of comparing false copy of Record of Rights.
5. Accordingly he is dismissed from Government service with immediate effect. The dismissal order be notified in the Govt. Gazette."
6. "He (Munshi Chenansingh) furnished his explanation in response to show cause notice in which he admitted his guilt. He was heard in person on 19.7.1988. He again admitted his........ Guilt andrequested for pardon. Thus the charge which is of serious nature stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The gravity of offence is of serious nature. It was all done by him with ulterior motive and mala fide intention. He is therefore found guilty of gross mis-conduct/corruption and is liable for major penally under the E&D Rules 1973. He is in fact blot on Revenue Department and injurious for the public. I am satisfied not to hold regular enquiry as he has admitted his guilt of issuing false copy of Record of Rights.
7. Accordingly he is dimmissed from Government Service with immediate effect. The dismissal order he notified in the Government Gazette."
8. Their Representations against' the above orders of the Authority were also rejected by the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division by his two separate orders bearing No. 4157-H.V.(Service)/89 dated 21.9.88.
9. Since the impugned orders pertain to the same cause of action, both the appeals are disposed by one and the same Judgment.
10. The point of determination in this case rests on the facts whether the act of ommission and commission for which the appellants have been charged was willful and that the document was prepared with mala fide intention to extract wrongful gain. The appellant Munshi Gumane has put in 21^ years service whereas the other appellant Munshi Chehansingh had by that time put in 7 years service. He was thus sufficiently experienced and senior to meet any situation of pressure or Allurement. In the alleged charge, the main part has been played by appellant Chehansingh who had prepared the fraudulent document whereas the appellant had signed the document as compare. The shrewdness of the appellant Chehansingh is amply demonstrated in the defence story which he built up in his reply the reply to the show cause notice quite distinct and opposed to what has been stated by the appellant Munshi Ghumane. This material contradiction made the entire defence story suspicious and unbelivable.However to meet the ends of Justice, the defence adopted by these appellants, has been examined carefully and minutely.
11. There is no consistency in the defence story as advanced by these appellants, Appellant Munshi Gumano elaborating the circumstances of the commission of the guilty in his reply to the show cause notice stated that while he was present in the Taluka Office to attend usual revenue collection committee meeting, Appellant Munshi Chehansingh came to him and showing extreme urgency asked the appellant to put his signature on the alleged document as comparer. Due to rush of work he put his signature on the extract putting reliance and faith on Munshi Chehansingh who was serior to him in service. According to the appellant it never occured to him that he would be cheated by his colleague and that he appellant Munshi Chehansingh would obtain his signature as comparer on a fake and fictitious document. The appellant asserted that it all happened in good faith and that he had no axe to grind, in the alleged affair. Incidently this plea which he had raised in the reply of showcausc notice does not wholly tally with that of the plea, expounded in the memo of appeal. Wherein the appellant Gumano admitted that he had put the signature as comparer with out verifying the entries from the original record under fear and threat of appellant Munshi Chehansingh who was senior to him.Whatever be the circumstances, the appellant is not absolved from the responsibility as comparer of a document. Both were Tapedars in the same Taluka and the difference of seniority alone is not sufficient to bring any element of fear or threat to persuade him to commit fraud & sign document without verification. The appellant was not his subordinate in any respect and was required to discharge his duties as comparer independently with full conscious of responsibility. Some of the entries of the extract like "unknown purchaser" were sufficient to create suspicion in his mind. From the facts as well as from his own admission it is evident that the appellant was either guilty of irresponsible behaviour or had conspired with the appellant Munshi Chehansingh in the preparation of a fake document. His role as an abater ol offence is manifestly proved when he admitted that he put signature on the true copy of the extract without verifying the entries from the original record of rights.
12. Quite contrary to the above, appellant Munshi Chehansingh developed a different story both in the memo of appeal as well as in the reply to the show cause notice. He stated that on 10.4.1988 the appellant had gone to the National Bank Dhore Naro Branch to deposit the recoveries of Ushr as well as to make some more recoveries from the Khatedars of the area. While returning from the Muslim Commercial Bank Dhore Nora Branch the appellant was suddenly kidnapped by some unknown persons and taken in a Suzuki Jeep to deserted place where the appellant was coerced to prepare the alleged fraudulent documents on gun point. The appellant Chehansingh however gave a different story of forcible abduction in the reply to the Show cause Notice. Therein, he stated that on return from Bank he was met by an unknown person who told him that Dost Ali Rajar has sent for the appellant for some urgent work and that he should accompany him to his shop. At the shop the appellant did not find Dost Ali Rajar and instead found some other unknown persons sitting over there. Those people told him that Dost Ali Rajar had some work with the appellant relating to revenue record and that he would be soon coming back as he had gbne for a while to the market. Later on they told him that Dost Ali Rajar is awaiting him out side the Town as his Bux had gone out of order. He then accompanied them, since he did not suspect their bonafidc. When he was about a mile or so away from the Town,one of these un-identified person took out the revolver and by putting the same on his chest, ordered the Driver to take the jeep inside the deserted place where they coerced the appellant to prepare the alleged fake document.From the details of the incident, the appellant gave in the reply to the Showcause notice, it is evidently clear that no threat or force was applied at the initial stage since the appellant had voluntarily accompanied them to tHE shop of Dost Ali Rajar Zamindar who must have been known to him in advance. The appellant Chehansingh no where indicated as at what stage and in what circumstances the appellant Gumano had appeared and collaborated in the offence. The inconsistency in the varsions of the appellants Gumano and Chehansingh is fatal to the entire defence story. Both the accused officials have changed their defence pleas. The non corroboration of facts stated in the replies to the Showcause Notice and memo of appeal also make the whole story dubious. The subsequent conduct and prolonged criminal silence of the Appellant Chehansingh do subscribe to the conclusion that the entire story is concocted, fictitious and fabricated. He did not inform Mukhtiarkar about the incident nor cautioned the office to be careful of any possible misuse of the fake documents. His criminal silence continued till 25th June, 1988, whereas the incident accured on 11.4.1988. This long silence is demonstrative of his criminal demeanour and no plausablc explanation for the same is available on the record. His assertion that he was keeping mum due to fear of those persons is unfounded since there is nothing on record that they continued issuing threats to the appellant after the alleged incident nor there is any mention that they caused any harm to the appellant after he disclosed the so called abduction and preparation of documents under coercion and threat. A careful reading of the defence pleas raised by the two appellants show that he facts as stated by the appellant Gumano in his memo of appeal are more near the truth and that the appellant Tapcdars were tempted to prepare a fake documents for some ulterior motives. This is further proved from their own admissions which they submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar on 19.7.1988 at the time of personal hearing it would be appropriate if their admissions are reproduced as such for proper comprehension of the facts.
13. Apocllnnt Munshi GhcSMttvflgli staled 4 underv )\a> vS^N ^'ojO^C. V\^ t-*-*e er-^-r*'*-*->!*- jr J ^ J>'j. vjOj^ J>15 tf'i'w j;xl& . r, WS'- kfijv Vj^iSiifc N>'1.^ <3 o^= 3j>^= SfrO. ^3^of> ---- ^>,> p^- CcN^\ J* ''-r*^*3 '^a>L-h ^ ^(It is submitted that the reply to the show cause notice submitted on22.6.1988 was according to my personal knowledge and belief and that I did commit the mistake of preparing an extract of Form DF 15 of fake Sale Considering the same a mistake from from a lower subordinate he may be excused for which he will ever pray for the long life and prosperity of the Deputy Commissioner).The appellant Gumano submitted the following admission at the time of his personal hearing:c\ L5ajoS=VU ^ cZAfr>*??bCr^. ^ c 9; <* *> t .j I(Today on 6.7.19881 have presented myself before the Deputy Commissioner to state the fact of the case. In this respect it is submitted that the entire correct position has been stadted in reply to the showcause notice and that I do not have any thing more to add. It is further submitted that I may kindly be excused for the commission of this act for which he would ever remain grateful). .The above have/sions which are the clear admissions of the guilt arc not controverted by any other evidence. In view of their admissions in unequivocal terms, the other plea raised by the appellants that no preliminary enquiries were held into the facts of the case fall on ground. There is no substance in such arguments since the disciplinary action was initiated under rule 5 sub rule 3 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973. There is ample evidence that the appellants were given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed action. After the admission of the incriminating actthere was hardly any ground which required any detailed enquiry, and hence the Authority in this case was justified to dispense with the necessity of holding enquiry into the matter. The authority viz Deputy Commissioner and Reviewing Authority viz Commissioner both had minutely gone into the facts of the case and after they were satisfied that act of misconduct was committed with malafied intention beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned order was passed.
14. As an upshot of the above discussions we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. Given under our hands and seal of the Tribunal this 28th of February, 1989.JUDGMENTMOBEEN AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER.-The Appellant Munshi Gumanc and Munshi Chchansingh both have come in appeal against the impugned orders dated 23.7.1988 passed by .The Deputy commissioner, Tharparkar, whereby they were dismissed from service with immediate effect. The relevant back ground giving rise to this appeal is that both the appellants W'erc serving as Tapcdars in District Tharparkar when on 22.6.1988, the Deputy Commissioner Tharparkar separately served thejn with the show cause notices holding them guilty of preparation of fake and fraudulent sale document in favour of some unknown purchasers. The show cause notice served on appellant Munshi Gumanc read as under:"That you in collusion with Munshi Chehansingh tapedat; of tapa Hiral put signature of comparison on the false and fcbricated copy pf P.F.No.X V Book No.224, entry No.12 of deh 4-Hiral on 11.4.1988 regarding fraudulently sale of S.No. 65,66,67,68,72 and 73 admeasuring 96-00 acres belonging to one Amir Khan s/o Gul Bag Rajar whole rupees in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the un- known purchaser, but in fact the said S.Nos were not on the khata of the above named khatedar on 2.12.1987 as shown in the copy of P.F.XV above.
2. That you intentionally and fraudulently compared the above said copy of P.F. No.XV without seen and verification of the original P.F XV without seen and verification of the original P.F No.XV of Book No.224 which indicates your mis-chicf.
3. That you did with will and mala fide intention in order to give wrongful gain to the purchaser and to give wrongful loss to the r$al owners.
4. That by the reasons of above you appear to be quilt of misconduct/corruplion/in- cfficicncy/negligcnce in the discharge of your official duties and have thus rendered your self liable for award of any major penalty under the Sind Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1973."
16. The Show cause Notice issued against appellant Munshi Chehansingh pertained to the same cause of action yet slightly differed in the following manner: "That on 11.4.1988, you have prepared and got issued a false and fcbricated copy of P.F.No.XV Book No.224, entry No.12 of deh-4 Hiral, Tapa Hiral showing fraudulently sale of S.Nos 65,66,67,68,72 and 73 admeasuring 96-00 acres, owned by Amir Khan s/o Gul Beg Rajar whole Rupees, in the sum of Rs. 1.50,000/- and later on rubbed off the name of purchaser written in column No.8, But in fact the said S Nos were not on khata of the above named khatedar on 2.12.1987 as shown by you."
17. Both the appellants replied the showcause notice on the same date on 25.6.1988 and raised different pleas of defence. The Deputy Commissioner, 'T'l 1-- -ihf'ir renlies unsatisfactory as well as on pleading. Guilty by the accused officials dismissed the appellants by tow different orders dated 23.7.1988 placed as Annexures A-3 and B-l on their respective files.
18. However it would be relevant to reproduce the concluding paras of these orders for their proper appraisal: "He (Munshi Gumane) furnished his explanation in response of showcause notice in which he pleaded his guilt and requested for excuse. He was heard in person on 19.7.1988. He again admitted his guilt and requested for pardon him. Thus the charge which is of serious nature stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The gravity of offence is of serious nature. It was all done by him with ulterior motive and mala fide intention. He is therefore found guilty of gross mis- conduct/corruption and is liable for major penalty under the (E & D)Rules, 1973. I am satisfied not to hold regular enquiry as he has admitted his guilt of comparing false copy of Record of Rights.
19. Accordingly he is dismissed from Government service with immediate effect. The dismissal order be notified in the Govt. Gazette."
20. "He (Munshi Chenansingh) furnished his explanation in response to show cause notice in which he admitted his guilt. He was heard in person on 19.7.1988. He again admitted his........ Guilt andrequested for pardon. Thus the charge which is of serious nature stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The gravity of offence is of serious nature. It was all done by him with ulterior motive and mala fide intention. He is therefore found guilty of gross mis-conduct/corruption and is liable for major penally under the E&D Rules 1973. He is in fact blot on Revenue Department and injurious for the public. I am satisfied not to hold regular enquiry as he has admitted his guilt of issuing false copy of Record of Rights.
21. Accordingly he is dimmissed from Government Service with immediate effect. The dismissal order he notified in the Government Gazette."
22. Their Representations against' the above orders of the Authority were also rejected by the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division by his two separate orders bearing No. 4157-H.V.(Service)/89 dated 21.9.88.
23. Since the impugned orders pertain to the same cause of action, both the appeals are disposed by one and the same Judgment.
24. The point of determination in this case rests on the facts whether the act of ommission and commission for which the appellants have been charged was willful and that the document was prepared with mala fide intention to extract wrongful gain. The appellant Munshi Gumane has put in 21^ years service whereas the other appellant Munshi Chehansingh had by that time put in 7 years service. He was thus sufficiently experienced and senior to meet any situation of pressure or Allurement. In the alleged charge, the main part has been played by appellant Chehansingh who had prepared the fraudulent document whereas the appellant had signed the document as compare. The shrewdness of the appellant Chehansingh is amply demonstrated in the defence story which he built up in his reply the reply to the show cause notice quite distinct and opposed to what has been stated by the appellant Munshi Ghumane. This material contradiction made the entire defence story suspicious and unbelivable.However to meet the ends of Justice, the defence adopted by these appellants, has been examined carefully and minutely.
25. There is no consistency in the defence story as advanced by these appellants, Appellant Munshi Gumano elaborating the circumstances of the commission of the guilty in his reply to the show cause notice stated that while he was present in the Taluka Office to attend usual revenue collection committee meeting, Appellant Munshi Chehansingh came to him and showing extreme urgency asked the appellant to put his signature on the alleged document as comparer. Due to rush of work he put his signature on the extract putting reliance and faith on Munshi Chehansingh who was serior to him in service. According to the appellant it never occured to him that he would be cheated by his colleague and that he appellant Munshi Chehansingh would obtain his signature as comparer on a fake and fictitious document. The appellant asserted that it all happened in good faith and that he had no axe to grind, in the alleged affair. Incidently this plea which he had raised in the reply of showcausc notice does not wholly tally with that of the plea, expounded in the memo of appeal. Wherein the appellant Gumano admitted that he had put the signature as comparer with out verifying the entries from the original record under fear and threat of appellant Munshi Chehansingh who was senior to him.Whatever be the circumstances, the appellant is not absolved from the responsibility as comparer of a document. Both were Tapedars in the same Taluka and the difference of seniority alone is not sufficient to bring any element of fear or threat to persuade him to commit fraud & sign document without verification. The appellant was not his subordinate in any respect and was required to discharge his duties as comparer independently with full conscious of responsibility. Some of the entries of the extract like "unknown purchaser" were sufficient to create suspicion in his mind. From the facts as well as from his own admission it is evident that the appellant was either guilty of irresponsible behaviour or had conspired with the appellant Munshi Chehansingh in the preparation of a fake document. His role as an abater ol offence is manifestly proved when he admitted that he put signature on the true copy of the extract without verifying the entries from the original record of rights.
26. Quite contrary to the above, appellant Munshi Chehansingh developed a different story both in the memo of appeal as well as in the reply to the show cause notice. He stated that on 10.4.1988 the appellant had gone to the National Bank Dhore Naro Branch to deposit the recoveries of Ushr as well as to make some more recoveries from the Khatedars of the area. While returning from the Muslim Commercial Bank Dhore Nora Branch the appellant was suddenly kidnapped by some unknown persons and taken in a Suzuki Jeep to deserted place where the appellant was coerced to prepare the alleged fraudulent documents on gun point. The appellant Chehansingh however gave a different story of forcible abduction in the reply to the Show cause Notice. Therein, he stated that on return from Bank he was met by an unknown person who told him that Dost Ali Rajar has sent for the appellant for some urgent work and that he should accompany him to his shop. At the shop the appellant did not find Dost Ali Rajar and instead found some other unknown persons sitting over there. Those people told him that Dost Ali Rajar had some work with the appellant relating to revenue record and that he would be soon coming back as he had gbne for a while to the market. Later on they told him that Dost Ali Rajar is awaiting him out side the Town as his Bux had gone out of order. He then accompanied them, since he did not suspect their bonafidc. When he was about a mile or so away from the Town,one of these un-identified person took out the revolver and by putting the same on his chest, ordered the Driver to take the jeep inside the deserted place where they coerced the appellant to prepare the alleged fake document.From the details of the incident, the appellant gave in the reply to the Showcause notice, it is evidently clear that no threat or force was applied at the initial stage since the appellant had voluntarily accompanied them to tHE shop of Dost Ali Rajar Zamindar who must have been known to him in advance. The appellant Chehansingh no where indicated as at what stage and in what circumstances the appellant Gumano had appeared and collaborated in the offence. The inconsistency in the varsions of the appellants Gumano and Chehansingh is fatal to the entire defence story. Both the accused officials have changed their defence pleas. The non corroboration of facts stated in the replies to the Showcause Notice and memo of appeal also make the whole story dubious. The subsequent conduct and prolonged criminal silence of the Appellant Chehansingh do subscribe to the conclusion that the entire story is concocted, fictitious and fabricated. He did not inform Mukhtiarkar about the incident nor cautioned the office to be careful of any possible misuse of the fake documents. His criminal silence continued till 25th June, 1988, whereas the incident accured on 11.4.1988. This long silence is demonstrative of his criminal demeanour and no plausablc explanation for the same is available on the record. His assertion that he was keeping mum due to fear of those persons is unfounded since there is nothing on record that they continued issuing threats to the appellant after the alleged incident nor there is any mention that they caused any harm to the appellant after he disclosed the so called abduction and preparation of documents under coercion and threat. A careful reading of the defence pleas raised by the two appellants show that he facts as stated by the appellant Gumano in his memo of appeal are more near the truth and that the appellant Tapcdars were tempted to prepare a fake documents for some ulterior motives. This is further proved from their own admissions which they submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar on 19.7.1988 at the time of personal hearing it would be appropriate if their admissions are reproduced as such for proper comprehension of the facts.
27. Apocllnnt Munshi GhcSMttvflgli staled 4 underv )\a> vS^N ^'ojO^C. V\^ t-*-*e er-^-r*'*-*->!*- jr J ^ J>'j. vjOj^ J>15 tf'i'w j;xl& . r, WS'- kfijv Vj^iSiifc N>'1.^ <3 o^= 3j>^= SfrO. ^3^of> ---- ^>,> p^- CcN^\ J* ''-r*^*3 '^a>L-h ^ ^(It is submitted that the reply to the show cause notice submitted on22.6.1988 was according to my personal knowledge and belief and that I did commit the mistake of preparing an extract of Form DF 15 of fake Sale Considering the same a mistake from from a lower subordinate he may be excused for which he will ever pray for the long life and prosperity of the Deputy Commissioner).The appellant Gumano submitted the following admission at the time of his personal hearing:c\ L5ajoS=VU ^ cZAfr>*??bCr^. ^ c 9; <* *> t .j I(Today on 6.7.19881 have presented myself before the Deputy Commissioner to state the fact of the case. In this respect it is submitted that the entire correct position has been stadted in reply to the showcause notice and that I do not have any thing more to add. It is further submitted that I may kindly be excused for the commission of this act for which he would ever remain grateful). .The above have/sions which are the clear admissions of the guilt arc not controverted by any other evidence. In view of their admissions in unequivocal terms, the other plea raised by the appellants that no preliminary enquiries were held into the facts of the case fall on ground. There is no substance in such arguments since the disciplinary action was initiated under rule 5 sub rule 3 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973. There is ample evidence that the appellants were given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed action. After the admission of the incriminating actthere was hardly any ground which required any detailed enquiry, and hence the Authority in this case was justified to dispense with the necessity of holding enquiry into the matter. The authority viz Deputy Commissioner and Reviewing Authority viz Commissioner both had minutely gone into the facts of the case and after they were satisfied that act of misconduct was committed with malafied intention beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned order was passed.
28. As an upshot of the above discussions we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
29. Given under our hands and seal of the Tribunal this 28th of February, 1989.JUDGMENTMOBEEN AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER.-The Appellant Munshi Gumanc and Munshi Chchansingh both have come in appeal against the impugned orders dated 23.7.1988 passed by .The Deputy commissioner, Tharparkar, whereby they were dismissed from service with immediate effect. The relevant back ground giving rise to this appeal is that both the appellants W'erc serving as Tapcdars in District Tharparkar when on 22.6.1988, the Deputy Commissioner Tharparkar separately served thejn with the show cause notices holding them guilty of preparation of fake and fraudulent sale document in favour of some unknown purchasers. The show cause notice served on appellant Munshi Gumanc read as under:"That you in collusion with Munshi Chehansingh tapedat; of tapa Hiral put signature of comparison on the false and fcbricated copy pf P.F.No.X V Book No.224, entry No.12 of deh 4-Hiral on 11.4.1988 regarding fraudulently sale of S.No. 65,66,67,68,72 and 73 admeasuring 96-00 acres belonging to one Amir Khan s/o Gul Bag Rajar whole rupees in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the un- known purchaser, but in fact the said S.Nos were not on the khata of the above named khatedar on 2.12.1987 as shown in the copy of P.F.XV above.
2. That you intentionally and fraudulently compared the above said copy of P.F. No.XV without seen and verification of the original P.F XV without seen and verification of the original P.F No.XV of Book No.224 which indicates your mis-chicf.
3. That you did with will and mala fide intention in order to give wrongful gain to the purchaser and to give wrongful loss to the r$al owners.
4. That by the reasons of above you appear to be quilt of misconduct/corruplion/in- cfficicncy/negligcnce in the discharge of your official duties and have thus rendered your self liable for award of any major penalty under the Sind Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1973."
30. The Show cause Notice issued against appellant Munshi Chehansingh pertained to the same cause of action yet slightly differed in the following manner: "That on 11.4.1988, you have prepared and got issued a false and fcbricated copy of P.F.No.XV Book No.224, entry No.12 of deh-4 Hiral, Tapa Hiral showing fraudulently sale of S.Nos 65,66,67,68,72 and 73 admeasuring 96-00 acres, owned by Amir Khan s/o Gul Beg Rajar whole Rupees, in the sum of Rs. 1.50,000/- and later on rubbed off the name of purchaser written in column No.8, But in fact the said S Nos were not on khata of the above named khatedar on 2.12.1987 as shown by you."
31. Both the appellants replied the showcause notice on the same date on 25.6.1988 and raised different pleas of defence. The Deputy Commissioner, 'T'l 1-- -ihf'ir renlies unsatisfactory as well as on pleading. Guilty by the accused officials dismissed the appellants by tow different orders dated 23.7.1988 placed as Annexures A-3 and B-l on their respective files.
32. However it would be relevant to reproduce the concluding paras of these orders for their proper appraisal: "He (Munshi Gumane) furnished his explanation in response of showcause notice in which he pleaded his guilt and requested for excuse. He was heard in person on 19.7.1988. He again admitted his guilt and requested for pardon him. Thus the charge which is of serious nature stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The gravity of offence is of serious nature. It was all done by him with ulterior motive and mala fide intention. He is therefore found guilty of gross mis- conduct/corruption and is liable for major penalty under the (E & D)Rules, 1973. I am satisfied not to hold regular enquiry as he has admitted his guilt of comparing false copy of Record of Rights.
33. Accordingly he is dismissed from Government service with immediate effect. The dismissal order be notified in the Govt. Gazette."
34. "He (Munshi Chenansingh) furnished his explanation in response to show cause notice in which he admitted his guilt. He was heard in person on 19.7.1988. He again admitted his........ Guilt andrequested for pardon. Thus the charge which is of serious nature stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The gravity of offence is of serious nature. It was all done by him with ulterior motive and mala fide intention. He is therefore found guilty of gross mis-conduct/corruption and is liable for major penally under the E&D Rules 1973. He is in fact blot on Revenue Department and injurious for the public. I am satisfied not to hold regular enquiry as he has admitted his guilt of issuing false copy of Record of Rights.
35. Accordingly he is dimmissed from Government Service with immediate effect. The dismissal order he notified in the Government Gazette."
36. Their Representations against' the above orders of the Authority were also rejected by the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division by his two separate orders bearing No. 4157-H.V.(Service)/89 dated 21.9.88.
37. Since the impugned orders pertain to the same cause of action, both the appeals are disposed by one and the same Judgment.
38. The point of determination in this case rests on the facts whether the act of ommission and commission for which the appellants have been charged was willful and that the document was prepared with mala fide intention to extract wrongful gain. The appellant Munshi Gumane has put in 21^ years service whereas the other appellant Munshi Chehansingh had by that time put in 7 years service. He was thus sufficiently experienced and senior to meet any situation of pressure or Allurement. In the alleged charge, the main part has been played by appellant Chehansingh who had prepared the fraudulent document whereas the appellant had signed the document as compare. The shrewdness of the appellant Chehansingh is amply demonstrated in the defence story which he built up in his reply the reply to the show cause notice quite distinct and opposed to what has been stated by the appellant Munshi Ghumane. This material contradiction made the entire defence story suspicious and unbelivable.However to meet the ends of Justice, the defence adopted by these appellants, has been examined carefully and minutely.
39. There is no consistency in the defence story as advanced by these appellants, Appellant Munshi Gumano elaborating the circumstances of the commission of the guilty in his reply to the show cause notice stated that while he was present in the Taluka Office to attend usual revenue collection committee meeting, Appellant Munshi Chehansingh came to him and showing extreme urgency asked the appellant to put his signature on the alleged document as comparer. Due to rush of work he put his signature on the extract putting reliance and faith on Munshi Chehansingh who was serior to him in service. According to the appellant it never occured to him that he would be cheated by his colleague and that he appellant Munshi Chehansingh would obtain his signature as comparer on a fake and fictitious document. The appellant asserted that it all happened in good faith and that he had no axe to grind, in the alleged affair. Incidently this plea which he had raised in the reply of showcausc notice does not wholly tally with that of the plea, expounded in the memo of appeal. Wherein the appellant Gumano admitted that he had put the signature as comparer with out verifying the entries from the original record under fear and threat of appellant Munshi Chehansingh who was senior to him.Whatever be the circumstances, the appellant is not absolved from the responsibility as comparer of a document. Both were Tapedars in the same Taluka and the difference of seniority alone is not sufficient to bring any element of fear or threat to persuade him to commit fraud & sign document without verification. The appellant was not his subordinate in any respect and was required to discharge his duties as comparer independently with full conscious of responsibility. Some of the entries of the extract like "unknown purchaser" were sufficient to create suspicion in his mind. From the facts as well as from his own admission it is evident that the appellant was either guilty of irresponsible behaviour or had conspired with the appellant Munshi Chehansingh in the preparation of a fake document. His role as an abater ol offence is manifestly proved when he admitted that he put signature on the true copy of the extract without verifying the entries from the original record of rights.
40. Quite contrary to the above, appellant Munshi Chehansingh developed a different story both in the memo of appeal as well as in the reply to the show cause notice. He stated that on 10.4.1988 the appellant had gone to the National Bank Dhore Naro Branch to deposit the recoveries of Ushr as well as to make some more recoveries from the Khatedars of the area. While returning from the Muslim Commercial Bank Dhore Nora Branch the appellant was suddenly kidnapped by some unknown persons and taken in a Suzuki Jeep to deserted place where the appellant was coerced to prepare the alleged fraudulent documents on gun point. The appellant Chehansingh however gave a different story of forcible abduction in the reply to the Show cause Notice. Therein, he stated that on return from Bank he was met by an unknown person who told him that Dost Ali Rajar has sent for the appellant for some urgent work and that he should accompany him to his shop. At the shop the appellant did not find Dost Ali Rajar and instead found some other unknown persons sitting over there. Those people told him that Dost Ali Rajar had some work with the appellant relating to revenue record and that he would be soon coming back as he had gbne for a while to the market. Later on they told him that Dost Ali Rajar is awaiting him out side the Town as his Bux had gone out of order. He then accompanied them, since he did not suspect their bonafidc. When he was about a mile or so away from the Town,one of these un-identified person took out the revolver and by putting the same on his chest, ordered the Driver to take the jeep inside the deserted place where they coerced the appellant to prepare the alleged fake document.From the details of the incident, the appellant gave in the reply to the Showcause notice, it is evidently clear that no threat or force was applied at the initial stage since the appellant had voluntarily accompanied them to tHE shop of Dost Ali Rajar Zamindar who must have been known to him in advance. The appellant Chehansingh no where indicated as at what stage and in what circumstances the appellant Gumano had appeared and collaborated in the offence. The inconsistency in the varsions of the appellants Gumano and Chehansingh is fatal to the entire defence story. Both the accused officials have changed their defence pleas. The non corroboration of facts stated in the replies to the Showcause Notice and memo of appeal also make the whole story dubious. The subsequent conduct and prolonged criminal silence of the Appellant Chehansingh do subscribe to the conclusion that the entire story is concocted, fictitious and fabricated. He did not inform Mukhtiarkar about the incident nor cautioned the office to be careful of any possible misuse of the fake documents. His criminal silence continued till 25th June, 1988, whereas the incident accured on 11.4.1988. This long silence is demonstrative of his criminal demeanour and no plausablc explanation for the same is available on the record. His assertion that he was keeping mum due to fear of those persons is unfounded since there is nothing on record that they continued issuing threats to the appellant after the alleged incident nor there is any mention that they caused any harm to the appellant after he disclosed the so called abduction and preparation of documents under coercion and threat. A careful reading of the defence pleas raised by the two appellants show that he facts as stated by the appellant Gumano in his memo of appeal are more near the truth and that the appellant Tapcdars were tempted to prepare a fake documents for some ulterior motives. This is further proved from their own admissions which they submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar on 19.7.1988 at the time of personal hearing it would be appropriate if their admissions are reproduced as such for proper comprehension of the facts.
41. Apocllnnt Munshi GhcSMttvflgli staled 4 underv )\a> vS^N ^'ojO^C. V\^ t-*-*e er-^-r*'*-*->!*- jr J ^ J>'j. vjOj^ J>15 tf'i'w j;xl& . r, WS'- kfijv Vj^iSiifc N>'1.^ <3 o^= 3j>^= SfrO. ^3^of> ---- ^>,> p^- CcN^\ J* ''-r*^*3 '^a>L-h ^ ^(It is submitted that the reply to the show cause notice submitted on22.6.1988 was according to my personal knowledge and belief and that I did commit the mistake of preparing an extract of Form DF 15 of fake Sale Considering the same a mistake from from a lower subordinate he may be excused for which he will ever pray for the long life and prosperity of the Deputy Commissioner).The appellant Gumano submitted the following admission at the time of his personal hearing:c\ L5ajoS=VU ^ cZAfr>*??bCr^. ^ c 9; <* *> t .j I(Today on 6.7.19881 have presented myself before the Deputy Commissioner to state the fact of the case. In this respect it is submitted that the entire correct position has been stadted in reply to the showcause notice and that I do not have any thing more to add. It is further submitted that I may kindly be excused for the commission of this act for which he would ever remain grateful). .The above have/sions which are the clear admissions of the guilt arc not controverted by any other evidence. In view of their admissions in unequivocal terms, the other plea raised by the appellants that no preliminary enquiries were held into the facts of the case fall on ground. There is no substance in such arguments since the disciplinary action was initiated under rule 5 sub rule 3 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973. There is ample evidence that the appellants were given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against proposed action. After the admission of the incriminating actthere was hardly any ground which required any detailed enquiry, and hence the Authority in this case was justified to dispense with the necessity of holding enquiry into the matter. The authority viz Deputy Commissioner and Reviewing Authority viz Commissioner both had minutely gone into the facts of the case and after they were satisfied that act of misconduct was committed with malafied intention beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned order was passed.
42. As an upshot of the above discussions we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
43. Given under our hands and seal of the Tribunal this 28th of February, 1989.