ABDUL MAJEED KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th August, 1994 whereby departmental appeal of the appellant was partly allowed and the major penalty of reduction in lower rank for a period of 5 years was converted into minor penalty of stoppage of annual increments for a period of two years for the years 1994 and 1995. The facts out of which impugned order is arising are that the appellant was charge-sheeted by the authorised officer under charge-sheet dated 18th December, 1993. The allegations constituting misconduct mentioned in the charge-sheet are that "you attended the meeting on 17-12-1993 at Fataz Hotel, Hyderabad arranged by Mr. Mir Khan Khaskhali Mukhtiarcar Gothabad, Hyderabad. In the said meeting you along with others protested/agitated against the registration of cases through Anti- Corruption Establishment Officers on the allegations of misappropriation of relief funds earmarked for rain/flood affectees of 1992. In the said meeting some pressmen were also present which earmarked the publication in daily newspaper which has accrued embarrassment to the administration".
2. The appellant has replied to the said charge-sheet vide his reply dated 27-12-1993 wherein he had admitted participation in the meeting dated 17-12-1993 and have mentioned that discussing the plea of false involvement in the cases in such meeting will not amount to misconduct. However, he denied the knowledge as to who prepared the minutes of the meeting and passed on to the press. He claimed freedom of association under the amended rule 28 in the Sindh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and so also freedom of association under Article 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
3. Since reply of the appellant could not satisfy the Authorised Officer and as such Mr. Kamaluddin Qureshi was appointed as an Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry into the charge levelled against the appellant as well as against other 7 Assistant Commissioners and 4 Mukhtiarkars. The appellant had participated in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer held all the 11 Officers guilty including the appellant and recommended for departmental action by the competent Authority.
4. In view of the enquiry report dated 10th February, 1994 the appellant was issued final show-cause notice on 23rd February, 1994 by the Authorised Officer along with copy of the enquiry report. The Authorised Officer in the final show-cause notice proposed the major penalty of reduction to lower post for a period of 5 years. The appellant in his reply admitted that newspaper did carry objectionable publication which was outcome of the meeting dated 17-12-1993 but he shifted the whole burden on Mukhtiarkar Mr. Mir Khan. The appellant had gone to the extent to say that lie wholeheartedly condemned this item of newspaper but he had no concern whatsoever nature which has been published.
5. The record shows that the Authorised Officer had accorded personal hearing to the appellant on 25th April, 1994 as per letter dated 20th April, 1994 and thereafter competent Authority passed the order dated 3rd May, 1994 .in exercise of powers conferred on him under Rule 5(4)(b) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 ordering reduction in rank for a period of 5 years to the appellant with immediate effect.
6. The appellant had filed departmental appeal under rule 3 of Sindh Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1980 before the Chief Minister, Sindh. The memo. of appeal bears the date 23rd May, 1994.
7. The Appellate Authority partly allowed such appeal taking a lenient view of the matter and converted the major penalty into minor one by ordering stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years. This is the last order dated 9th August, 1994 passed by the Appellate Authority which has been impugned in this appeal.
8. The appellant filed appeal through his Advocate Mr. Naimatullah Qureshi but today he made a statement to argue the appeal in person as his Adyocate has refused to attend the case. We have heard the appellant in person and also Syed Saidan Zaidi the learned Assistant Advocate-General and perused the record. The main thrust of the submission of the appellant is that the meeting dated 17-12-1993 was just a get-together and such type of get-together did not amount to misconduct and he has relied on Rule 28 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Against this the learned Assistant Advocate-General argued that the appellant was suspended from service on 13th October, 1993 on the charge of misappropriation of relief funds amounting to Rs,7,88,000 during the year 1992-93 while he was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Mirpurkhas and on account of this criminal case is pending before a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad. He further argued that out of 11 officers who were penalised out of departmental disciplinary proceedings only two officers i,e, the present appellant and one Nathu Ram filed appeal before the Tribunal whereas rest of the officers accepted the penalty and did not challenge the same by way of filing appeal before this Tribunal. According to him the appellant had not denied attending of the meeting on 17-12-1993 and the Enquiry Officer who held the enquiry provided full opportunity to the appellant of hearing, had held him guilty.
9. We have given our serious thoughts to the contention of the parties and perused the record. The appellant in his reply .to the charge-sheet had admitted the allegations in paras. Nos.2 and 3 of the reply dated 27th December, 1993 inasmuch as he admittedly attended the meeting on 17-12-1993 where besides him 40 other officers were present and the subject of discussion was registration of false cases against the Revenue Officers by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. In para. 5 of the said reply he has impliedly admitted that the subject of discussion was subsequently published in the newspaper but he did not know who prepared the minutes of the meeting and passed on to the press. If his reply to the charge-sheet is read with his reply dated 12th March, 1994 against the final show-cause notice wherein against charge 'd' at page 4 he has said that he wholeheartedly condemned such news item which was published in the newspaper. The question is whether such a conduct of the appellant is covered under Rule 28 wherein subsection (1), clauses (e), (h) and sub-clause (2) was taken by us into consideration and we have reached the conclusion that association which the appellant was admittedly member and participated in the meeting on 17-12- 1993 shall not involve itself in any individual case of its member and shall not publish any representation on behalf of its member whether in the press or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the Government. Meeting of the Association and subject it discussed, and its subsequent release to the press is clearly in violation of the rule 28 which has been relied by the appellant himself. It is not the case of the appellant that on account of any objectionable speech or discussion on controversial subject he had left the meeting and disassociate himself. Therefore, in our view he cannot avoid legal liability arising out of such meetings in which he participated from beginning till end. He has also not produced any press clipping in his defence through which he had condemned the publication in the newspaper published as outcome of the meeting dated 17-12-1993. If any of the Government Officer is involved in criminal case he cannot stage protest against involvement in political manner but has to defend himself in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority has already taken lenient view by converting major penalty into minor one. We have been informed by Assistant Advocate-General that Nathu Ram has since been retired and that is why he has not turned up to pursue his appeal which was fixed along with this appeal.
Therefore, the appeal of Nathu Ram is dismissed for non-prosecution.
In view of above discussion we do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal this 30th day of September, 1997 at Karachi.