' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---This petition has been filed by Government of Sindh seeking leave against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal (by majority of 2 to 1 whereby the appeal of respondent Sikander Ali, Assistant Mukhtiarkar, against his dismissal, was allowed. One member (Mr. Bahauddin Sirhindi) was of the opinion that the appeal had no merit and was liable to be dismissed. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Saleem Samo, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, in support of the petition and have referred to the relevant record.
2. By order dated 15-11-1995 of Commissioner Hyderabad, major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the respondent in exercise of the powers under Rule 5 (4) (b) of Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The respondent was charge-sheeted as follows:--- "(1) That you attested the bogus entry No,9-A of V.F. VII old od deh Canjo Takar Taluka Latifabad in the year, 1994 after lapse of three years without verifying the record, as it was prepared by Munshi Lal Bux Tapedar in the year 1991.
(2) That you also verified the wrong sketches of above bogus Khata for the land already reserved for housing schemes belonging to H.D.A.
(3) That you on 30-6-1994 with mala fide intention also issued ownership certificate of above holding without proper verification.
(4) That you with the collaboration of Tapedars gave undue benefit to land grabbers with ulterior motive entailing financial loss to ' Government."
' The respondent was suspended, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry and found respondent and other involved officials responsible. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the respondent for furnishing his reply but the reply furnished by him was not found satisfactory and he was, as observed, dismissed from service by order dated 15-11-1995.
Respondent filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Sindh, Hyderabad, which was dismissed by judgment dated 7-1-1996. As observed, respondent's appeal to the Sindh Service Tribunal has been allowed. Paras. 6 to 9 of the judgment of Board of Revenue dated 7-1-1996 read as follows:--- "6. The appellant mainly contended that extract of village Form VII and sketches were not attested/ verified by him. He disowned his signatures thereon. He admitted his signatures on the certificate of ownership issued in favour of Hassan Ali and Mst. Islam Khatoon for an area 1800 acres but stated that the names of land holders and area had been rubbed/ erased and interpolated. He pleaded that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the departmental proceedings. He also referred to the findings of the enquiry officer who had recommended imposition of minor penalty.
He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order being illegal and void may be set aside and he may be re-instated in service.
7. Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) rebutted the contentions of the appellant and stated that as per old village Form VII there was only one Entry No,9 in respect of Forest Department i,e, S.0-16 acre, 0-10 Ghuntas in Deh Ganjo, Takker, Tauluka Hyderabad (now Latifabad). But subsequently bogus entry was made by assigning Entry No,9-A in village Form VII. He further submitted that in the year 1986, when village Form VII-A was transcribed in new village Form VII-A, only one Entry No,9 of Forest Department was recorded. He also submitted that attested copy of extract of this bogus entry was signed by the appellant in the year 1994 as is evident from court-fee stamps affixed on the extract/sketches. He further pointed out that ownership certificate was issued by the appellant on the basis of above bogus entry.
8. I have given anxious consideration to the contentions of the appellant and have carefully perused the record. The record indicates that appellant Mr. Sikandar Ali Kalhoro had issued the following certificate under his signatures as Assistant Mukhtiarkar for Mukhtiarkar Taluka Latifiabad on 30-6-1994.
Certificate "This is to certify Mr. Hassan Ali and Islam Khatoon,is the owner of land bearing Survey No,1, admeasuring 1800 acres, of Deh Ganjoo Takkar, Taluka Latifabad, District Hyderabad.
' There are no arrears outstanding against him.
(Sd.)
' Mukhtiarkar Taluka Latifabad Assistant Mukhtiarkar and IIIrd Class Magistrate, Taluka Latifabad."
' He admits his signatures on the above-referred certificate. He, however, pleaded that original certificate issued by him pertained to some other person and related to some other land of Deh Ganjo Takker. He could not, however, adduce any evidence in support of his contention.
9. In order to ensure that justice is not only done but demonstrated to have been so done, the appellant was given a chance to submit office copy of original ownership certificate alleged to have been issued by him or any attested copy of the said certificate within 3 days. It was made clear that if the documentary proof was not received within the stipulated period, it would be presumed that the appellant had nothing to adduce in support of his contentions. The appellant on 20-12-1995 submitted an application stating that as he had no access to the record, and as copy of such type of certificates is never kept on the record, he was unable to produce the said certificate.
' The plea taken by the appellant is not convincing. Huge loss was caused to the Government because of the bogus extract of village form VII false ownership certificate issued under appellant's signatures to the land grabbers for an area of 1800 acres of extremely valuable urban State land. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly rejected and impugned order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division is maintained."
3. The Chairman, Sindh Service Tribunal, however, took a contrary view in deciding respondent's appeal in his favour by holding as follows:-- "The learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue appears to have taken view that if the execution of the document is proved then content thereof are also proved by necessary implication. I am afraid that this is not exact legal position of the matter. The prosecution was duty bound to prove its case against the accused official beyond any reasonable doubt. So far the execution of the document was concerned that was admitted by the accused himself and then it was the duty of the prosecution to bring direct evidence on the point that the contents were manipulated by the accused official himself or by his connivance, which the prosecution has miserably failed to prove."
4. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate-General and perusing the record, we are of the view that a case for grant of leave is made out. According to the office, the present petition is barred, by 8 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. The question of limitation will be considered at the time of the hearing of main appeal. Subject to the question of limitation, which will be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal leave is granted to consider whether the Sindh Service Tribunal was right in upsetting the judgment of the Board of Revenue despite respondent's admission regarding his signatures on the concerned certificate according to which it had been wrongly certified that Hassan Ali and Mst. Islam Khatoon were owners of land measuring 1800 acres in village Ganjo Takkar, Taluka Latifabad, District Hyderabad. The appeal may be fixed at an early date.