1. JUDGMENTJUSTICE (RTD) MUNAWARALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN.-By this judgment we propose to dispose three appeals: Apeal No: 2/1989. Appeal No: 112/1988 and Appeal No: 7/1989, respectively filed by Messrs Zulfiqar Ali, Abdul Qayoom and Ghulam Anwar. All the three appellants were Sub-Engineers (BS-II), when their services were terminated for the reason that they had submitted forged documents in support of their qualifications, They challenged their orders of termination in departmental appeal and after waiting for usual period of 90 days, they filed the aforementioned appeals before this Tribunal.2. Appellant Zulfiqarali was appointed as Sub-Engineer on adhoc basis by the Director, On Farm Water Management Project, Sind, Haderabad (hereinafter referred as the Director) vide his order dated 21.1.1985. Subsequently by order dated 7th April, 1985 of the Director his services were transferred to the Command Water Management Project and he was posted under the Assistant Director, Tharushah. On 2.7.1988 vacant posts of Sub-Engineers in CommandWater Management Project, Sind, Kandiaro were advertised in the Daily Jung, as a result whereof even the appellant had to appear in the interview before the Departmental Selection Committee on 17.7.1988 for regularization of his services. On verification of the documents; namely, certificate of qualifications and application for appointment produced by the appellant, the committee found them to be defective, as they had been tampered with and had shown the appellant to possess diploma in Mechanical though actually it was Diploma in Auto-Diesel & Farm.
2. Accordingly on recommendations of the Selection Committee his services were terminated after giving him show-cause notice.3. Appellant Ghulam Anwar was appointed as Sub-Engineer vide order of Sub-Project Manager, Command Water Management Project, Sind, Kandiaro (hereinafter referred as the Sub-Project Manager) dated 24.5.1986, on verbal instructions of the then Agriculture Minister. Both in his application for appointment and the document of his qualifications the appellant had produced, he was shown to have passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in the First Division from Government College of Technology, Hyderabad. However he had done his diploma in Tool Design & Tool Making. For regularization of his services, when the appellant appeared before the Departmental Selection Committee on 17.7.1988 the Committee gave a unanimous verdict that the appellant did not possess the prescribed qualifications and had rather forged the documents in question. Accordingly after giving his show-cause notice dated30.7.1988, the services of this appellant too were terminated vide order of the Sub- project Manager, dated 31.8.1988.4. Appellant Abdul Qayoom was appointed as Sub-Engineer vide order of the Sub-project Manager, dated 1.1.1986 in pursuance of the written direction of the Agriculture Minister. The application for appointment and certificate of qualifications submitted by the said appelant indicated that he was Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. Subsequently the appeii&Qt submitted application to the Sind Public Service Commission offering himself for the post of water Management Officer. His said application accompanied by document of qualifications was routed through proper channel namely Deputy Director, Command Water Management Project and the Sub-project Manager. On processing of his application, it came to light that foregery was committed in respect of the documents that the appellant had produced for getting the sub- Engineer's post. Accordingly he was given a chance to appear before the Departmental Selection Committee on 17.7.1988. As per decision of the said Committee, his services were terminated vide the Sub-project Manager's order dated 31.8.1988 after giving him the requisite show-cause notice.5.
3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Assistant Advocate General. They also took us through all the documents relevant for disposal of the appeals.The services of the appellants were terminated by three separate orders passed on the same date viz 31.8.1988. The text of the said orders was almost identical. It was in the following words:"The services of Mr................ S/o........... Sub-Engineer are hereby terminatedwith effect from 31.8.1988 (A.N) due to submitting forged documents of qualifications and verification of his original documents of qualifications does not suit the qualification required for the post of Sub-Engineer in this project. He is allowed to make appeal for reinstatement to Director General AE&WM, Sind Hyderabad, within a month, if he desires so."6. The above order clearly shows that the appellants' services were terminated on two grounds first, they had produced forged documents of qualification; second, they did not possess the qualifications required for the post of Sub-Engineer.
4. The point for consideration is whether above two allegations were proved before the impugned orders of termination of the appellants' services were issued, lt is not disputed that a disciplinary action was initiated against the appellants' in accordance with the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 (hereinafter referred as the said rules). As required by sub-rule (3) of the rule 5 of the said rules the appellants were served with Show-cause-notice on different dates: Zulfiqar Ali on 16.8.1988, Ghulam Anwar on 30.7.1988 and Abdul Qayoom on 30.8.1988. The notice served on them was however couched in the same language which reads as under:"In exercise of the powers vested in me under the Sind Civil Servants (E&D) Rules 1973 the undersigned being authorized officer, dohereby issue show-cause to you Mr................... s/o.............. Sub-Engineer,Field Team N'Feroze on the following grounds:i) . That on verification of the original certificates furnished by you on17.7.1988 before the Selection Committee Command Water Management Project, it reveals that your qualification does not suit to the post of Sub-Engineer.Ii) . That you have deliberately submitted the forged copies of thecertificates in your application while getting the appointment order.Iii) . That it is clear cut fraud, forgery and tampering of the record donedeliberately by you to get the employment.Iv) . That by virtue of this you arc liable for major penalty specified underrule 4 (1) of the said Rules.Please show cause within fifteen days of the receipt of this notice as to why penalty should not be imposed upon you which may entitled you liable for termination from Government Service."7. It appears from the above notice that for the purpose of getting appointment order for the Sub-Engineers post the appellants had allegedly produced forged documents of their qualifications and that the forgery came to light on verification of the original documents of qualifications by the Selection Committee. This charge has been emphatically refuted by all the three appellants in their reply to be above show-cause notice.
5. The relevant part of appellant Zulfiqar Ali's reply is {is under:"That may qualification as shown in the original Testimonial is Auto Diesel, and m v appointment was made on the basis of my said qualification. It was the look out of the department to determine the suitability of my qualification before issuing appointment order and no appointment order should have been issued, if actually my said qualification did not stand commensurate with the post of Sub-Engineer."Against the above reply the learned Assistant Advocate General relied upon the photo copies of appellant Zulfiqar Ali's application and certificate of qualification that he had allegedly produced at the time of his appointment. In both the documents he is shown to have done diploma in Mechanical Engineering.8. So far the reply to show-cause notice submitted by appellant Ghulam Anwar is concerned it is substantially the same as given by appellant Zulfiqar Ali hereinabove excepting the claims that" his qualification as shown in the original Testimonial is Mechanical with Specialization in Tool Design and Tool Making". However, in refutation of his claim the learned Assistant Advocate General invited our reference to appellant's application and certificate of qualifications he had produced at the time of his appointment which clearly indicated that he was Diploma in 'Mechanical'.9. As regard the reply to the show-cause notice given by appellant Abdul Qayoom, it is found that it is also materially the same as given by other two appellants excepting of course in respect of qualifications for which his version is; "That my qualification as shown in the original Testimonail is Auto Farm". In his case also the learned Assistant Advocate General referred us to his application and certificate of qualification he had produced at the time of his appointment. Both these documents clearly indicated that he had done Diploma in 'Machanical Engineering'.10. It would appear from the above narration that the documents allegedly produced by the appellants at the time of their appointment did not tally with the original documents in respect of their qualifications. As such we have no hesitation to conclude that the documents allegedly produced at the time of appellants' appointment were not genuine but were rather tampered with. This is confirmed even by a bare look at the said documents. We should now proceed to identify the hand which had committed the tampering. In ordinary course it is a matter of presumption that the appellant who was in need of the job would make alterations in the documents in question so as to look that he possessed the qualification prescribed for the job. It was rather unbelievable that the Government Department who provided the job to the appellant would have committed the tamperings. However, it was argued on behalf of at least two of the appellants namely Ghulam Anwar and Abdul Qayoom that since their appointments were made on the instructions of the then Agriculture Minister, the Departmental Authorities were obviously not happy and therefore the tampering of the documents in question must have been done by the said authorities. The learned counsel also expressed the view that by resorting to tampering of the documents, the departmental authorities could achieve their objective of ousting the unwanted hands from service.11. Despite our insistence, neither party could produce the relevant rules prescribing the qualifications for the post of Sub-Engineer. None thclcss our attention was drawn to two advertisements; one appearing in Sindhi Newspaper fixing 10th June, 1985 as the last date for receipt of applications for Sub- Engineers' posts, and the other appearing in the Daily Jang dated 7.7.1988 requiring the candidates for the posts of Sub-Engineers to appear for interview along with original documents on 17.7.1988 in the office of Sub-project Manager. In both these advertisements, the requisite qualifications for the post of Sub- Engineer were mentioned as Degree in Agriculture or Civil or Mechanical Engineering or diploma in civil or Mechanical Engineering. Unless it was proved otherwise, it was presumed that the qualifications specified in the aforesaid advertisements were in keeping with the prescribed qualifications. As pointed out above no rules were however produced in rebuttal of the above presumption. It is an admitted position that none of the appellants possessed the said qualifications when they were appointed on adhoc/temporary basis. For regularization of their appointment when they appeared before the Departmental Selection Committee there too, they could not prove that they possessed the required qualifications. On the contrary it was disclosed before the Committee that appellant Zulfiqar Ali had diploma in Auto Diesel & Farm Technology, appellant Ghulam Anwar possessed diploma in 'Mechanical with specialization in Tool Design& Tool Making' and appellant Abdul Qayoom had done diploma in 'Auto and Farm'. Consequently instead of regularizing their appointments, the Selection Committee recommended for termination of their services.12. The recommendations of the Selection Committee apart, even on the appellants' own admission that they did not possess the requisite qualification namely diploma in Mechanical Engineering, they were not qualified to continue in the posts of Sub-Engineers. However, on behalf of appellant Ghulam Anwar it was faintly, argued that his qualifications namely Mechanical Specialization in Tool Desgin and Tool Making' was covered by the prescribed qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering'. The above argument was controverted by the learned AAGF who showed us the prospectus of Government College of Technology, Hyderabad for Diploma of Associate Engineer (1985-86). At page 2 of the said prospectus were listed the Technologies offered and seats available It would appear from that list that 'Mechanical Technology' at S.No: (iv) is mentioned separately from 'Tool Design and Tool Making Technology' appearing at S.No: (v). Accordingly we were not inpressed by the argument that the qualifications possessed by appellant Ghulam Anwar could be bracketted with the requisite qualifications for sub-Engineer's post. We are of the view that since the appellants lacked the requisite qualifications, there was nothing wrong with the impugned orders of termination of their services.13. Despite our above findings, the question that still agitated our mind was whether the appellants would carry the stigma of tampering of the documents they had produced at the time of their appointment. Admittedly detailed enquiry was not held under the said rules and therefore the parties did not get opportunity to produce necessary evidence to prove their respective vie\fr points. As pointedout above, of course the presumption could be raised that the appellants had indulged in tampering of the documents in question. But such presumption was rebuttable and the party affected by it could successfully rebut the same if he had positive evidence to that effect. Two of the appellants have already alleged that the tampering was done at the level of the departmental authorities. May be if they were given opportunity through holding full dress enquiry, they could have proved their contention.
6. More over there are other factors also which can not be easily overlooked. If the appellants had taken the risk of tampering, they would have started the mischief right from the original documents. However, there is no indication on record that even the original documents were found distarted. On the contrary it appears from the show-cause notice served on the appellants, that the tampering of the documents came to light on verification of the original documents which means that the said documents were intact. Our attention was also invited to the letter of the Sub- project Manager, dated 24.2.1988 addressed to the Director General, Argicultural Engineering and Water Management enclosing a copy of seniority list of Ministrial and Technical Staff working in command Water Management Project Sind Kandiaro. In the said list the appellants were hown to possess their genuine qualification. Thus if the departmental authorities knew about their real qualifications on 24.2.1988, how would they reconcile their ersion contained in the show-cause notice that tamperings came to light during he appellant' interview before the Selection Committee on 17.7.1988. In this onncction the departmental authorities owed an explanation as to source of nformation about appellants' real qualifications, which was not forthcoming. They Iso had to explain the delay caused in booking the appellants inspite of the isclosurc about their real qualifications through seniority list. These questions ave obivously remained un-answered.
7. Accordingly it would not be just and fair to old the appellants guilty of tamperings on the basis of only rebuttable, resumptions. Taking the above discussion into consideration were held that the harge of tampering of the documents in question was not proved, against the appellants.
8. Consequently the words relating to the said charge be deleted from the mpugned order which should be revised so as to read that the appellants' services ere terminated only for want of the prescribed qualifications.14. Subject to the observations made hereinabove, all the three appeals re dismissed with no orders as to costs.Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal on this 9th day of ctober, 1989 at Karachi.