1. ' ABDUL MAJID KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).----Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, dated 1-12-1997 which was served upon him. According to him on 14-12-1997 whereby he was awarded minor penalty of withholding of annual increments for a period of 2 years w,e,f, 1-12-1997, has filed the present appeal on the following grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
2. ' That he was appointed on 22-11-1982 as Field Assistant. His job was to procure wheat and cotton seed for which he used to visit various landowners and other growers. He was served a show- cause notice, dated 31-7-1997 by the Director Administration, which reads as under:- "SUB. SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ' Whereas it has been reported that you Mr. Rashid Ahmed Malik, Field Assistant, Marketing Office, SSG, Sakrand attended the office at about 12.30 on 26-6-1997 and left the office after making signature on the muster roll and took away the muster roll for photostat purpose, after some time you returned back to office and muster roll was found with you. Thus, you have been proved yourself to be guilty of misconduct under SSG Services Regulations.
3. ' Therefore, you Mr. Rashid Ahmed Malik, Field Assistant by this Notice are hereby directed to show cause your position in writing within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of this notice 'positively as to why the penalty described under clause 23 of SSG Service Regulations may not be imposed upon you on account of your above act of misconduct.
4. ' Your reply should reach the undersigned within stipulated period failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say to your defence and the decision/action will be taken against you under the relevant rules .Of Sindh Seed Corporation." ' to which he replied on 16-8-1997. According to the impugned order he was heard in person on 15- 9-1997 and said to have admitted the charge levelled against him in show-cause notice and after his admission of the allegations levelled in show-cause notice the impugned order was passed.
5. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan and Mr. Muhammad Moosa Leghari for the respondents.
6. ' The main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the order is mala fide and does not come in the purview of misconduct.
7. ' According to him the authority cannot issue show-cause notice nor he can award minor penalty.
8. He has also argued that no final show-cause notice was served on the appellant. He has relied on 1999 TD R.135 and 1997 SCM R P.1543. Photo-copies of the citations not supplied by the Advocate for the appellant.
9. ' Mr. Muhammad Moosa Advocate for respondents has mainly argued that what the authorised officer can do authority also can do the same. He has further argued that since major penalty was not there as such final show-cause notice was not necessary. He has also argued that no departmental appeal is filed by the appellant and the photo copy of the postal receipt filed with the, memo. Of appeal is managed and there is no record with the department having received appeal of the appellant. On this score alone this appeal is not maintainable as the appellant has not exhausted the remedy. Whereas the appellant had filed photo copy of departmental appeal alongwith photo copy of the postal receipt, dated 12-1-1998 but the perusal of the photo copy of the postal receipt shows that there is a manipulation in the date. When the Advocate for appellant and the appellant was asked where is the original postal receipt the reply was that it is lying in his house. He was accordingly directed to produce the same within a week, but till today the same has not been submitted before the Tribunal. Perusal of the photo-copy of the so-called Departmental appeal which is also filed by the appellant as Annexure 'E' at page 25 but is denied by the respondents as stated above as not having been received also corroborates the order, dated 1-12- 1997 and that of the memo. Of appeal of the appellant proves that the appellant has not come with clean hands as the earlier version whereby he replied the show-cause notice he has denied of taking away the muster roll outside the premises and got the photo copies of the same without permission but on his personal hearing with the Director Administration on 15-9-1997 he has admitted that he has taken the muster roll and has got the photo copies of the same without permission of the authorities which he has admitted in his memo. Of Departmental appeal as under:-- "(1) (a) That the admission of taking away the muster roll was not a crime or sin as I explained before the competent Authority at the time of personal hearing. The reason was very simple that I had to verify the touring dates and besides the muster roll is not a confidential document but it is always open for all the concerned staff members to see and sign the presence."
10. ' As for the departmental appeal is concerned there is a word against the word. The appellant has filed photo copy of the Departmental appeal as stated above but the same has been vehemently denied by the respondents in their para. 11 of the written statement which reads as under:-- "Para.11. The allegations are false and baseless. It is incorrect to say that the appellant has preferred any departmental appeal to the Managing Director, SSC, appellant may prove his contention."
11. ' Since the appellant has not come with clean hands and has also failed to prove that he has posted the departmental appeal. This appeal apart from other grounds fails as the departmental appeal has not been filed. The Advocate for respondents was directed on 16-9-1999 to supply the rule and regulations of the department within week but we are sorry to say that the Advocate has failed to abide with the orders of this Tribunal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed having no merits as well as the remedy of exhausting the departmental appeal has not been proved with no orders as to costs.