1. ' ABDUL MAJID KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).---The brief facts of appeal, according to the appellant, are that she was initially inducted in service as H.S.T (Higher Secondary Teacher) in BPS-14 in 1968, appointed as Lecturer BPS.17 in 1973 and subsequently is District Education Officer BPS-18 in 1978, through Sindh Public Service Commission. She was granted Move-over to BPS-19 in 1991 with effect from 1988. She, allegedly, was superseded by her next junior by the D.P.C., malafidely, on the basis of A.C.Rs, which don't pertain to her, and therefore, filed departmental appeal on 28-7-1994, when she came to know about it. This departmental appeal was rejected on 28-5-1995 and decision was communicated to her on 12-7-1995.
2. ' Hence, this appeal.
3. ' The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was deprived of her right of promotion in an illegal and fraudulent way, and therefore, requested the Tribunal for summoning the original service record of the appellant from the respondents, particularly her A.C.Rs, (Annual Confidential Reports) for the relevant years i,e, 1980 on-words, which was ordered so and, has been produced by the respondents through the A.A.-G. The alleged mala fides and fraudulent tactics of the concerned officer, according to him are evident from the fact that the appellant has served all along in Larkana Division (previously Sukkur Division) but the synopsis of A.C.R. Of the appellant basis of qualification attached with the w.s. Of the respondents filed, is signed by one Mrs. Mumtaz Mirza, the then Additional Director (Women), Directorate of School Education, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad who neither had any locus standi in the matter because the appellant had not served for a single day in Hyderabad Division, nor she could have any access to her A.C.Rs, which are kept with the Larkana Directorate with a copy in the Education Department, Sindh Secretariat, at Karachi. He also pointed out to the fact that as per para. 3 of the w.s. On behalf of the respondents it is alleged that the appellant had secured 59% marks in columns quantity of output, integrity oath. Intellectual and moral (lesser than prescribed 60%), and therefore, Respondents have alleged that she was rightly superseded--while the position is just the opposite.
4. He presented the qualification made by the concerned Directorate of Larkana Division which shows that the appellant has qualification of 82% (in quantity) 77%, (in output and work), 75% (in Intellectual Integrity and 79.5% (Moral Integrity). Hence, according to him, it is crystal clear that the appellant had much more qualification than prescribed 60% in all the relevant columns and the w.s. Of the respondents is totally false and incorrect based on false and fabricated documents.
5. Therefore, he pleaded that the impugned final/appellate order needs to be set aside and appellant was entitled for the reliefs asked by her viz. directions 'that the appellant be considered for her promotion to the next higher grade BPS-19 and onwards with effect from the due date as she is eligible for her promotion in accordance with the prescribed rules/regulations/prescribed quantification.
6. ' The A.A.-G. Frankly speaking had no answer to the points raised by the counsel for the appellant i,e, as to why the synopsis of her A.C.Rs, on the basis of which the appellant had been allegedly deferred or superseded were prepared by the abovesaid Mrs. Mumtaz Mirza, the then Additional Director, Hyderabad who had no locus standi as the appellant had not served for a single day in Hyderabad Division nor to the manifest incorrect quantification prepared by the said official with vast variations in calculations of these A.C.Rs, according to synopsis and actual A.C.Rs,, produced before us, these variations are shown below and A.A.-G. When confronted with the same, had no answer.{{TABLE}} #TBS Ref. Annexure 'G' of the W.S. Of the respondents.
7. 1979 ACR 1980 "
8. 1981 " 1582 " 1983 " 1984 " 1985 " #TBE Intergrity Moral Marks Intellec- tual Marks Actual ACRs produced in evidence Good 7 Good 7 Al-8 + Al =8 (Very good)
9. Av. 5 Av. 5 A=7 + A=7 (Good)
10. Av. 5 Av. 5 A=7 + A=7 Av. 5 Av. 5 A=7 + A=7 Av. 5 Av. 5 A =7 + A =7 Av. 5 Av. 5 A=7 + A=7 Good 7 Good 7 Not 'available 440 PAKISTAN LABOUR CASES 2000 Ref. Annexure 'G' Moral Marks Intele- Marks Actual ACRs of the W.S. Of ctual produced in the respondents. Evidence 1986 ACR Av. 5 Av. 5 A=7 + A=7 1987 " Av. 5 Av. 5 A=5 + C=5 Upgraded by Secretary Countersigning officer, as better than Majority (i,e,, good in overall grading.
11. 1988 ' Av. 5 Av. 5 *C=5+C=5 Upgraded by Secretary Education in overall grading as good.
12. 1989 Good 7+ Good 7 A=7+A=7 1990 Good 7+ Good 7 A=7+A=7 1991 Good 7+ Good 7 A=7+A=7 1992 Good 7+ Good 7 A=7+A=7 ' What is obvious from this juxtaposition grading is that her grading integrity column was malafidely downgraded in Synopsis at Annexure 'G' from Good (A) = 7) to Average (C = 5) for 1980 to 1984 (5 years) resulting in unauthorised deduction of 10 marks. Moreover, in the A.C.Rs, of 1987 and 1988 despite ungradation of her A.C.R. From Average (Equal in majority) to Good) (better than the majority) by the countersigning officer viz.Secretary Education it was still calculated @ 5 instead of @ 7. Notwithstanding deduction of one (1) mark in 1979 ACR. Thus, causing further unauthorised deduction of 4 marks. Had this fraud not be done her qualification would have been.
13. 96 68% instead of 59% 82 + 10 + 4 = = 6.8 x 10 = 60% as recorded in 14 Annex. 'G' (and written statement). {{TABLE}} ' According to the latest quantification, the appellant had secured 75.5% and more in relevant column whereas in the quantifications prepared by the said Mrs. Mumtaz Mirza and as incorporated in the w.s. Of the respondents, it is shown as 59% and 60%. Thus, the appellant was obviously deprived of her right of promotion to B-19 fraudulently. We are also in agreement with The counsel for the appellant, after seeing the original record of A.C.Rs, that the synopsis prepared by the said Mrs. Mumtaz Mirza, on which appellant was deferred/superseded is totally false and fictitious. Moreso, because it is well-known fact that original A.C.Rs, as per rules are kept with the Head of Department viz. Concerned Director with a copy in the Administrative Department. Since the appellant had never served for a single day in Hyderabad Division, the said Mrs. Mumtaz Mirza, Additional Director, Hyderabad Directorate could not have any access to that 'Confidential' record which is meant for the eyes of the Head of Department/Adminisitrative Secretary/concerned section of the Department.
14. ' We are, therefore, constrained to observe that this is a fit case for strict disciplinary action against the said Mrs. Mumtaz Mirza, apparently a. Dare Devil person who should be placed,under suspension and a departmental inquiry be held against her forthwith and finalized within a period of 6 months if she is still in service. We would also record here that disciplinary action be taken against the then S.O. (Admn.) and Deputy Secretary (Admn.) concerned of Education Department who failed to detect such glaring/manifest fraud, because even if they were not party to such fraud it speaks of their gross incompetence. They should also pay a sum of Rs,10,000 and 20,000 respectively from their own personal pockets as cost of litigation to the appellant, failing which the said amount may be recovered from their salary by A.-G., Sindh in reasonable instalments, as may be fixed by the Chief Secretary, Sindh.
15. ' With these observations the appeal is allowed and the said impugned original as well as appellate orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to put up the promotion case of the appellant to BPS-19 and above for consideration and orders of the concerned Selection Board immediately to which she is prima facie entitled w,e,f, the due date. We would also like to point out here that the respondents on 27th February, 1999, prima facie violated the status quo granted by the Tribunal on 2nd February, 1999 promoted M/s. Nizamuddin Mernon, Anwar Ahmed Zia and Ghulam Nabi Memon and normally speaking are liable for violating the same. However, the appellant and her counsel graciously did not press for the same. Appellant if promoted to BPS-19 and onwards, would be entitled to claim the benefits of Rule 13 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation; Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1973.
16. ' We have already allowed this appeal vide our short order, dated 14-4-1999 and these are the detailed orders and reasoning's thereof.