S. NASIM HAIDER (SENIOR MEMBER).--By this common judgment, the above mentioned 20 (twenty) service appeals, of the appellants are disposed of, as these involve the common, points of facts and questions of law, under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and rules framed there under.
2. We have heard Messrs M.M. Aqil Awan, Advocate for the appellants as well- as Syed Muhammad Saydain Zaidi, the Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh on 16-12-1997 and 7-1-1998 at length. (At the conclusion of his arguments, A.A.-G. requested to produce the record in connection with the D.S.C.
(Departmental Selection Committee, mentioned in the impugned order. At his request the said appeals were adjourned to 7-1-1998. The A.A.-G. undertook to file the concerned documents during the course of that day. These appeals were accordingly reserved for judgment. Documents comprising of 9 pages were, however, filed duly attested by the Excise and Taxation Department through the A.A.-G. on 12-1-1998).
3. The common facts of these appeals, according to the counsel for the appellants, briefly stated, are that the appellants were appointed as Excise and Taxation Constables, by the then Director(s)
Excise and Taxation (Admn) Karachi. The reasons for the termination of their services, as recorded in the impugned order are as follows:-- "The following Constables/Junior Clerks, who were irregularly appointed in violation of recruitment rules, were required to appear before the Departmental Selection Committee. As they were not cleared/recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee, their services are hereby terminated with immediate effect."
4. It was vehemently denied by the appellants that they were irregularly appointed in violation of the recruitment rules because no specific irregularity was ever pointed out and communicated to them in writing, nor any procedural errors/omissions or deficiencies in observance of recruitment rules were, ever, communicated to them. The appellants have also denied that any orders were issued, in writing/communicated and served upon them to appear before any Departmental Selection Committee, legally constituted and convened. The onus of proof thereof, squarely lies upon the respondents and they have failed to produce necessary supporting documents with their written statement. Hence, there was no question, whatso ever, that the appellants failed to clear D.S.C. The recommendations of D.S.C. if any were recorded without interviewing them, in their absence are arbitrary and of no legal consequence whatsoever. According to them the appellants were regularly appointed civil servants as their name are borne on the seniority lists bearing Nos.10(6)/81-Estt/1767. dated 17-8-1994 and 10(6)81- Estt./490, dated 5-24995. The counsel for the appellants has pointed out specifically that under Rule 10(1) of the Sindh Civil (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority). Rules, 1975 the seniority of a civil servant reckons, from the date of his regular appointment. As such, these seniority lists, are sufficient proof that the appellants, at the time of termination of their services, were regular employees of the Directorate of Excise and Taxation (Admn.) Karachi. According to him, the procedure for termination of the services of a civil servant, is prescribed in detail under section 11 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 which reads as under:-- "11. (1) The service of a civil servant may be terminated without notice -
(i) during the initial or extended period of his probation: Provided that, where such civil servant is appointed by promotion on probation or, as tilt-Case may be, or is transferred from one grade, cadre or post of another grade, cadre or post, his service shall not be terminated as long as he holds a lien against his former post in such grade or cadre, but shall be reverted to his former grade, cadre or post, as the case may be.
(ii) on the expiry of the initial or extended period of his employment.
(iii) if the appointment is made ad hoc terminable on the appointment of a person, on the recommendation of the Selection Authority, on the appointment of such person.
(2) where, on the abolition of a post or reduction in the number of posts in a cadre or grade, the services of a civil servant are required to be terminated, the person, whose services are terminated shall ordinarily be the one, who is the most junior in such cadre or grade.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), but subject to the provisions of subsection (2) the services of a civil servant in temporary employment or appointed ad hoc shall be liable to termination on fourteen days notice or pay in lieu thereof."
According to him none of the above provisions of Rule 11 are applicable to the appellants, whose services were allegedly terminated on altogether different reason i,e, failure to qualifying in D.S.C.
He has further argued that the only other modus operandi for the termination of the services of a civil servant (in the employment of Government of Sindh) is available in the Sindh Civil Srvants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1974, for which the allegation of 'misconduct' is a prerequisite--not so alleged in the case of the appellants. Even if such allegations were there, the services of the appellants could not be terminated, (termination of service being Major Penalty under the said rules) without issuance of a show-cause notice, followed by the 2nd/final show-cause notice, or resort to a proper departmental inquiry, as laid down specifically under rule 5(2) and (3) therein, or where his conduct has led to a sentence of fine or imprisonment; or when the authority is satisfied that, for reasons to be recorded in writing by that authority, it is not reasonable/practicable to give the accused an opportunity of showing cause, as provided under Rule 8 of the said rules (generally applied when the matters regarding the security of state are involved). None of these provisions" are applicable to the appellants as, neither any misconduct was alleged against them, nor were they required to show cause, nor any departmental inquiry was held against them.
5. It was alleged by the counsel for the appellants that the respondents' action was mala fide because the then Government in power wanted to appoint some of their favorites in the Excise and Taxation Department. Since, there were no vacancies and no new posts could be created for the well-known paucity of funds, a conspiracy was hatched under the disguise of scrutinizing the cases of those persons, who were appointed after August, 1990 allegedly, on irregular basis and in violation of the recruitment rules. In order to facilitate their nefarious designs, allegedly an advertisement was placed in the newspapers on 1-10-1994 for fresh recruitment only to the posts of Excise and Taxation, Constables/Junior Clerks, without specifying the number of vacant post and whether these posts were temporary or permanent in each Directorate of Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur etc., an essential ingredient of such advertisements and favourites selected. The respondents, thereafter, were confronted with the problem how to accommodate them so, the appellants were allegedly made sacrificial goats. The respondent's malafidely used the judgment of Honourable Supreme. Court of Pakistan in Human Rights Case No, 104 of 1992 passed on 26-12- 1992 and communicated/served upon the A.-G./Provincial Government of Sindh on 14-1-1993 allegedly to throw out 74 constables and junior clerks by the common impugned order on 30-8- 1995 after several years of unblemished service and after 32 long months of passing of the said order of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan by wrong application of these orders with retrospective effect i,e, from August 1990. According to ' him if the orders of Honourable Supreme Court, in the said Human Rights Case No,104 of 1992 are read carefully, these are confined to the posts filled up without publicly and properly advertisement of the same. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the appellants were appointed without advertisement of the posts-- how were they responsible for the same being on the lowest ladders, when the established principle of law is that none can be punished for the fault of another person. The fault if any, was that of the concerned appointing authority who should have been taken to task/proceeded departmentally and punished, if found guilty. No such action was taken by the Excise and Taxation Department. If the appellants were, at all, recruited without observance of any prescribed formality i,e, without resort to D.S.C., this fact should have been brought to their notice, by informing them individually to .appear before the concerned D.S.C. at a specific date, time and place, which was not done as no such letters were ever issued by the respondents nor served upon the appellants nor produced alongwith their w.s. In the absence of this essential requirement of proper service-- how the alleged D.S.C. interviewed them or prepared the merit list in their absence. In the eyes of law; it has no legal sanctity or rationale, specially when it is not known who headed this D.S.C., who were its other two members, what marks were fixed for that interview, how many marks were allocated to its Chairman and other members, what were the qualifying marks, if any and what was the marking of the said D.S.C. in respect of selected/recommended and not selected/nor- recommended, were any minutes of the proceedings of the said D.S.C. recorded and if so, these should have been presented to the Tribunal alongwith the w.s. of the respondents to ascertain their verasity and authenticity, logic and rationale. Unless the respondents are subjected to the strict proof thereof and such documents are actually produced before this Tribunal, the impugned order is a mere hoax and eye wash, void ab initio, ultra vires and must be set aside.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for appellants relied upon the following citations:--
(i) PLC 1995 (CS) p: 377 and 428
(ii) PLC 1995 (CS) pp. 611, 433 and 938
7. In reply Syed Muhammad Sayedian Ziadi, the learned A.A.-G. Sindh denied the allegations of the appellants/their counsel, that the Department Selection Committee in the E&T Deptt/Directorate E&T (Adorn) Karachi was never constituted legally, nor convened, nor its minutes were available nor a merit list was prepared by the concerned D.S.C. nor it was available with the respondents. He assured that such documents shall be produced before the Tribunal. He asserted that as per w.s. filed by the respondents, the appointment of the appellants was purely of temporary nature and according to clause (I) of their appointment orders it could be terminated without assigning any reason'. Their appointments according to him were made without observing the recruitment procedure laid down in the rules, but he failed to specify the same, when questioned by us. The appointments of the appellants according to the w.s. of the respondents were hit by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 26-12-1992, in Human Right Case No,104 of 1992 produced with their written statement. The respondents issued an advertisement in press on 1-10- 1994, concededly for fresh recruitment but directed the appellants to appear before the D.S.C. as a gesture of goodswill by more than one circular, indicating in clear terms that in case they fail to appear before the D.S.C. or were not selected/recommended by D.S.C. the services of the appellants would be terminated. Since the appellants were not cleared/recommended by the concerned D.S.C. their services were terminated accordingly.
8. We have gone through the arguments of both the sides and the documents placed on record very carefully. According to the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Sindh Givil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 the appointment of a civil servant is either 'Ad hoc' or 'Regular'. The procedure for appointment upto BSP-15 is laid down in Rules 3 read with 5(1) and 5(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants, (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, i,e, Selection through the prescribed Departmental Selection Committee which must comprise of at least 3 members including its Chairman, within each Department or office of the Government Since the appellants were appointed by the Director E&T (Admn) Karachi the prescribed D.S.C. in that Directorate was the only prescribed forum to regularize the appointment of the appellants.
9. In their written statement, in para. 1, the respondents have stated that the appellants were appointed on 'ad hoc basis' but the actual appointment orders are devoid of these words. Instead, their appointment orders state that the appellants' appointment was .'purely temporary' Although temporary appointment is not described anywhere in the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 or Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1974, 'temporary post' is defined in section 2(1) J of the said Act as 'a post other than a permanent post'. It, therefore, can be safely deducted that 'temporary appointment' would mean appointment against a temporary post which does not necessarily mean 'without observing the prescribed formalities as laid down under Rules 5(1) and 5(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 i,e, without going through the prescribed D.S.C. (Departmental Selection Committee) till actually so proved. In the absence of any documentary evidence produced by the respondents before this Tribunal in support of their statement that appellants were appointed on 'ad hoc basis' not mentioned in the appointment orders of the appellants, it prima facie amounts to 'heresay' and would not carry much weight. Under section 2(1) (a) of the said Act, ad hoc appointment "means appointment of a duly qualified person, made otherwise than in accordance the prescribed method of recruitment, pending the recruitment in accordance with such method.' The statement of the respondents that the appellants were ad hoc appointees would only amount to the confession that the appellants were duly qualified'; for their posts. If the appellants were appointed against a temporary post, through D.S.C., they would automatically be entitled to become permanent/confirmed from the date of occurrence of a permanent vacancy or from the date of continuous officiation, in such service or post, whichever is later according to the provisions of section 7(5) of the said Act. The statement of the appellants that they were appointed on regular basis gets weightage/support from the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation & Seniority)'Rules 1975, whereunder it is clearly provided that 'the seniority of a Civil Servants shall be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment because, the seniority list issued by the respondents in 1994 and 1995, bear their names in such lists--not denied specifically by the respondents. Hence, the balance of convenience whether appellants were regular employees, is in their favour and not the respondents. This conclusion gets further support from the facts that under section 11, of the said Act, a specific mechanism is provided for termination of the services of persons appointed against temporary post i,e, the principle of 'last come first go' basis--which was not resorted to, by the respondents while terminating the services of the appellants--most probably because the temporary post against which the appellants were originally appointed had become permanent by passage of time. All temporary posts are required to be made permanent or abolished within a period of 3 years as per prescribed administrative and financial discipline of the Governments Federal or Provincial.
10.As regards the question of non-advertisement of their posts prior to the appointment of the appellants we are of the opinion that the ad interim orders (subject to the final orders not produced by the respondents) of the Hon. Supreme Court of Pakistan in Human Right Case No,104 of 1992, were passed on 26-12-1962 and communicated by its Assistant Registrar to the Advocate- General, Sindh Government of Sindh on 14-1-1993 and become binding from that date i,e, the date of communications/service of such orders to the Provincial Government specially because of the use of the words 'forthwith' therein. No order can be applied with 'retrospective effect unless so spelled in the order itself. Since all the appellants were appointed prior to the communication of that order, it would not render their appointments 'irregular/in pursuance of the said orders of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, as incorrectly pleaded by the respondents in their written statement, in these appeals.
11.Even if prior to their appointment these posts were not advertised by the appointing authority, disciplinary action if any, we feel, was required to be taken against that appointing authority and not the appellants, the lowest echelons in the Department. Instead, the axe fell heavily on the appellants who were not responsible for that default or omission, in any way. We agree that the established principle of law is that none could be convicted or punished for the fault/error or omission of some other person. According to Letter No,4 (536) of 1989-Esst/2113, dated 4-10-1994 produced before us through A.A.-G. all the Excise and Taxation Officers, in Karachi Division were advised by the then Director E&T (Admn.) Karachi to 'direct all the official appointed allegedly on irregular basis since 1-8-1990 to apply to him for regularization to the present post and their cases would be considered for Clearance of their appointment, on regular footings. In case of failure to appear before the D.P.C.-D.S.C., their ad hoc services would be terminated without further assigning any notice'. The big question before us, remains whether the concerned E&T Officers did or could comply with such order, as recorded of all the appointments remains in the office of the appointing authority i,e, Director E&T (Admn). Karachi, in case of the appellants. In the absence of such record with the concerned E.T.Cs. how could they ascertain with surety who hau been regularized and who had not been regularized? The Letter No,3(141)83-Estt./2446, dated 14th November, 994 addressed to the Secretary E&T Department by the same authority produced through A.A.-G. is to the effect that all the ad hoc appointees from BS-1 to BS-15 had already been directed to apply for regularization as per letter, dated 4-10-1994 (without attaching a copy of the Compliance Report from the concerned E.T.Os., and therefore, has no weightage). Letter No,SO(ADMN-II)E&T/12(31)94 from the Section Officer (Adorn-III, (E&T) Department produced through A.A.-G. states in para. 2 'it has been decided that all such persons appointed in violation of rules may be rewired to appear before respective Departmental Selection Committee. It may be clarified that any person, who fails to appear before the Departmental Selection Committee shall be doing so, at his risk and cost'. The big question still remains, whether such persons (lists not attached) were actually directed and served with proper notices in writing to appear before the concerned D.S.C. and were such notice actually served upon them? This is denied by the appellants and the respondents have miserably failed to produce copies of any 'such notices actually served upon the appellants in any case.
Letter No,4(536)/89-Estt./63, dated 30-8-1995 i.e on the date of issuance of the impugned order from the Director E&T(Adnin), Karachi addressed to the Secretary E&T produced through A.A.-G. reads as under:-- "The Section Officer (Admn-H) E&T has conveyed the directions of the Secretary Excise and Taxation regarding termination of services of Junior Clerks/Constables who have been irregularly appointed after August 1990, in pursuance of Supreme Court of Pakistan order in Human Right Case No,104 of 1992. According to the directive conveyed by the S&GAD a Committee was constituted who have reached at a conclusion that Junior Clerks/Constables shown at Annexures A, C and D were irregularly appointed. However a chance was allowed for them to appear before the Departmental Selection Committee, for their regularization. Junior Clerks/Constables shown at Annexures A, C and D have not been cleared by the D.S.C. and their services are being terminated.'
It is worth while to note here that the impugned order was issued under the direction of the then Secretary E&T (Mr. Nayyar Bari, since dismissed on charges of corruption by the Government of Sindh) regarding termination of services of Junior Clerks/Constables appointed after August, 1990".
The words ' in pursuance of the orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Human Rights Case No,104 of 1992' are mere after thought or eye wash/for public consumption only, as these ad interim orders were passed on 26-12-1992 and communicated to A.-G. Sindh/Provincial Government on 14- 1-1993 and have no relevance to the appellants. The said orders in line Nos.18, 19 and 20 state:-- "It is ordered as an interim measure that the violation of this fundamental, Human Right shall be discontinued forthwith' and these orders relate only to filing up of posts on ad hoc/regular basis without publicly and properly advertising the vacancies and at times by converting ad hoc appointments into regular appointments.' Firstly these orders were interim orders subject to final orders, and a copy of the final orders has not been produced by the respondents. Secondly, the order were regarding non-publicity of vacant posts only. Thirdly, this malpractice was to be discontinued forthwith i,e, after passing such orders, and therefore, the termination of the services of the appellants appointed after August, 1990 but prior to the communication of the said order i,e, 14-1-1993 was not so warranted, nor was it to be applied with retrospective effect specially from the date of the choice of the respondents for which no logic or rationale is available. Surprisingly, all the above said documents were produced by the respondents, duly attested in E&T Department through the A.A.-G. on 12-1-1998 and we have no reasons to disbelieve these."
12.The respondents, through A.A.-G. have also produced two (2) lists of Junior Clerks and Constables, containing the names of 57 Junior Clerics and 17 Constables respectively, duly attested, showing the marks obtained by the successful candidates, allegedly. First of all, these lists are without reference to context and don't mention the dates on which interviews of the appellants, if any, were held and by whom. These lists carry only one signature' not named and without the official seal of that person.
13.Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 (reproduced again for the sake of convenience) stated as under:-- "5(1)In each Department or office of Government there shall be one or more Departmental Promotion or Selection Committees the composition of which shall be determined by the Department in consultation with the Services and General Administration Department.
(2) Each such Committee shall consist of at least three members one of whom shall be appointed as Chairman."
14.In view of this clear cut provision of law, the respondents were required to substantiate their written statement, through documentary evidence, i,e, production of a Notification regarding the constitution of a legally constituted Departmental Selection Committee with the approval of the Service and General Administration Department in the office of the Director Excise and Taxation (Admn.) Karachi on or before 11-1-1995 as the alleged interviews of the appellants are said to have been held between 11-1-1995 to 19-1-1995 as per written statement of the respondents. Neither any such notification has been produced before us, nor any minutes of such a legally constituted and notified D.S.C. have been produced before us by the respondents through the A.A.-G. The only document produced in this connection is the Notification No,SC (ADMN)/E&T/2(3)/93, dated 8th November, 1993, in the name of Mr. Nayyar Bari, the then Secretary to the Government E&T Department communicated under the signatures of Section Officer (Admn-I), namely Rafia Halim which states as under:-- "Notification SO(ADMN)/E&T/2(3)/93-Estt.--In pursuance of Services and General Administration Department's letter, dated 6th November, 1993, Departmental Committee consisting of the following members is hereby constitute in Excise and Taxatidn Department for examining the cases of Appointments made after August, 1990 and making the recommendation:-- (1)Mr. Jamshed Ahmed Khanzada Deputy Secretary.
(2)Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Shaikh, Directbr (Legal and Inspection).
(3)Director concerned."
In the endorsement at Serial No,3, "The Members (All) name of Mr. Akhtar Jan Agha" is recorded.
15. First of all the above said notification speaks only of the constitution of a "Departmental Committee" not being a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) or Departmental Selection Committee (D.S.C.) which are meant for the specific purposes of 'Promotion' and 'Selection' against newly created vacancies, whereas the purpose of the Committee constituted on 8th November, 1993 was specifically mentioned as 'examining the cases of Appointments made after August, 1990 and making the recommendations (in that regard). Secondly its composition does not show as to who was its chairman and as such it differs from D.S.C. as required under Rule 5(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974. Hence, this Department Committee can't and could not assume the prescribed legal role of D.S.C. within office of the Director E&T
(Admn) Karachi, being not in conformity with the laid down law more so because two of its Members namely Messrs Jamshed Ahmed Khanzada (Deputy Secretary) and Abdul Ghafoor Shaikh (Director, Legal & Inspection) were 'outsiders' to the said Directorate. The only minutes (extract of one paragraph marked page. 2 without attaching page (1) is signed by two members only and states "The Committee, therefore, proposes that the posts (not specified) may be advertised and persons mentioned in Annexures A, C, D, F and G may also be allowed/required to appear before the Departmental Selection Committee for the post, alongwith fresh candidates.
(Hence it is crystal clear that the said Departmental Committee was not the D.S.C.). The abovesaid Annexures A, C, D, F and G have not been submitted before the Tribunal. On the face of it notification dated 8-11-1993 of E&T Department is not related to the D.S.C. referred to in para. 3 of the w.s. of the respondents. It is, however, pertinent to note that in Letter No,4(536)/8989- Estt./63, dated 30th August, 1995 addressed to the Secretary E&T produced by the Director E&T (Admn)
Karachi duly attested through A.A.-G., para. 1 it is stated:-- "The Section Officer (ADMN-II) E&T has conveyed the directions of the Secreta Excise and Taxation De artment re ardin termination of services of Junior Clerks/constables who have been irregularly appointed after August. 1990 in pursuance of Supreme Court of Pakistan order in Human Rights Case No,104 of 1992. According to the direction conveyed by S&GAD and Committee was constituted who have reached at a conclusion that junior clerks/constables shown at Annexures A, C. and D were irregularly appointed. However, a chance was allowed for them to appear before the Departniental Selection Committee for their regularization. Junior Clerks/Constables shown at Annexures A, C and D have not been cleared and their services are being terminated.' This letter was issued on the same date on which the impugned order were issued. It, however, portrayes the complete picture i,e, the 'Departmental Committee' constituted on 8-11-1993, did not clear the persons in Annexure A, C and D (which pertained to Junior Clerks/Constables) the same persons were allegedly not cleaned by the so-called fictitious D.S.C. and the service of the same persons were terminated. Since the scope of the 'Departmental Committee' appointed on 8-11-1993 was only to examine the appointment made after August, 1990 and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Human Rights Case No,104 of 1992 was announced on 26-12-1992 and communicated to A.-G. Sindh on 13-1-1993, the finding of that Departmental Committee has no relevance to the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. Tht orders of the Honourable Supreme Court were to stop the practice of recruitment without publicly and properly advertising the vacancies 'forthwith' and did not relate to the appointments made after August, 1990. Hence, the respondents merely used that decision with mala fide intention to terminate the services of appellants who were appointed prior to the date of communication of that order."
16. The mala fide' of the respondents are evident from presentation of two (2) lists of Junior Clerks/Constables, through A.A.-G. Sindh who are said to have been selected in interviews (date not specified) showing various marks. If it was a merit list prepared by the appropriate concerned D.S.C. in case of the appellants, it should have been signed by its Chairman and other two members, but instead of three 3 signatures, only one signature is available on these lists. This signature most probably is that of Mr. Shafiq Khoso one of the predecessors, in 1992, of Mr. Agha Akhtar Jan Director Excise and Taxation (Admn.) Karachi during whose tenure of office the alleged D.S.C. met in 1995 and finalized its recommendations as stated in para. 3 of the w.s. of the respondents. It amounts to a deliberate attempt to misguide and mislead the S.S.T. which amounts to contempt of this Tribunal, for which action could be initiated separately against all concerned.
The respondents have miserably failed to produce the notification regarding a legally constituted D.S.C. in the Directorate of E&T (Admn) Karachi at the relevant period i,e, in January, 1995, and even failed to come up with the names of its Chairman and two members in their written statement and when verbally inquired from A.A.-G. No copy of the minutes, properly recorded by the concerned, legally constituted, D.S.C. or merit list prepared by it, of all the persons interviewed by it i,e, those who were selected/recommended and rejected/nor recommended, showing the allocated marks for interview, division of the same amongst the Chairman and two members, marks fixed for qualifying the interview given by its Chairman and two members to all those who appeared for interview, has been produced before us.
17.We are, therefore, unable to maintain the impugned order. These appeals, are allowed. We are, also of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 30-8-1995 is mala fide, bad in law and non-sustainable, for gross violation of various laws mentioned above, particularly, reg. composition of a legally valid D.S.C. No, evidence whatsoever has been produced before us that such a D.S.C., did exist in the Directorate of E&T (Admn) Karachi in January, 1995 when the alleged interviews of the appellants were held in January 1995 or till the termination of the services of the appellants on 30-8-1995. The written statement of the respondents amounts to a crude and cruel attempt on their part to mislead this Tribunal by presentation of irrelevant record and two merit lists signed by one of the predecessors in office of the then Director E&T (Admn.) Karachi prior to the alleged interview in January, 1995 of the appellants, who were never issued/served notice to appear before a properly constitution D.S.C. as no such record was produced before us, that properly constituted D.S.C. ever met or recorded its minutes or finalised an authentic merit list.
18.Since the main author of the tragedy drama the then Secretary Excise and Taxation, Sindh has already been dismissed reportedly on charges of corruption under 'Makafat-e-Amal', these appeals of the appellants are allowed with full back benefits, no order as to costs.
Given under our hand and the seal of Tribunal this 28th day of January, 1998, at Karachi.