1. ' ABDUL MAJID KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).---The brief facts as stated by the appellant in his memo. Of appeal are that he joined Municipal Service under respondent No,1 on 6-9-1965. In the year 1976 the appellant was Cashier in Municipal Committee Tando Allahyar, while late Anwar Ahmed was the Accountant and co-accused Muhammad Essa was the Store Keeper at the relevant time. A cheque for an amount of Rs,1,500 (Rupees fifteen hundred only) payable to the labourers was drawn by the Accountant late Mr. Anwar Ahmed Pirzada and was drawn from the ,Bank by Store Keeper Muhammad Essa. 'The amount was required to be paid to the labourers but the payment was actually not made to the concerned labourers. However, as in his capacity as Cashier, he made the entry in the Cash Book being Entry No,17 showing receipt of the amount from the Bank as well as disbursement of the amount to the labrourers. Although actually the Store-Keeper Muhammad Essa and the Accountant late Anwar Ahmed Pirzada, had claimed that the amount had been disbursed among the concerned labourers. The defalcation was noticed by the Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad during his inspection on 28-5-1976. It was further observed by the Audit party who inspected the concerned office of the Municipal Committee, therefore, the appellant by application dated 12-11-1977 lodged the complaint that the amount of Rs,1,500 drawn by cheque mentioned above had been misappropriated by the Administrator, Municipal Committee in complicity with the Store Keeper Muhammad Essa, subsequently F.I.R. Was registered on 12-7-1978 after due performance of formalities. The case was challaned in the Court of Special Judge Anti- Corruption (Provincial) Hyderabad being Special Case No,10 of 1984. The learned Trial Court acquitted Muhammad Essa of all charges but convicted the appellant for offence under sections 218 and 277-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, inflicting upon him sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and payment of fine of Rs,3,000 and in default simple imprisonment of three months. The appellant against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 25-4-1989 preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh Hyderabad Circuit, being Criminal Appeal No, 49 of 1989 which was dismissed by judgment dated 23-4-1990. The appellant moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court but the same was dismissed in limine by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the judgment dated 24-9-1990. The appellant in spite of the conviction continued serving respondent No,1 when Municipal Staff Union, Tando Allahyar addressed a petition to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Secretary Local Government and other authorities seeking dismissal of the appellant from service on the basis of the conviction in the criminal case referred above. The relevant authorities forwarded the case to respondent No,2, who by order dated 28-7-1993 recorded finding that the appellant is relieved on dismissal from Municipal Service from the date of order viz 26-7-1993. Against this order the appellant moved Appellate Tribunal, Local Councils, Sindh, Karachi which was also dismissed on 15-9-1993 on the simple ground that against the order of the respondent No,2, the appellant had not moved an appeal under rifle 10 of Sindh Local Councils Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules of 1974 and therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter. He has filed this appeal before this Tribunal on 2- 11-1998 .
2. The main contentions of the appellant are that the appellant was dismissed by respondent No,2 who was not the Competent Authority. He has further argued that no final show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, no enquiry was conducted, nor personal hearing was afforded to the appellant as appellant had been condemned unheard.
3. ' Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for respondent No,1 stressed that the appellant was convicted by the Special Judge and the judgment was maintained by the Hon'ble High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has further argued that the services of the appellant were terminated by respondent No,2, but no departmental appeal was filed as such this appeal is not maintainable. He has further argued that for the convicted person it is not necessary to issue show-cause notice and adopt the formalities, since the conviction is imprisonment till rising of the Court and payment of fine of Rs,3000 as such according to him the appellant is not entitled for any relief. He has also challenged the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Qasim Mirjat, A.A.-G. For respondents Nos.2 and 3 has adopted the arguments of Advocate for respondent No,1.
5. ' We have heard the arguments of the appellant as well as counsel for respondent No,1 which were adopted by A.A.-G. For respondents Nos.2 and 3 and have also perused the record.
6. ' The appellant in his memo. Of appeal in paras. Nos.3 and 4 has admitted that a cheque amounting to Rs,1,500 payable to the labourers was drawn by the Accountant late Mr. Anwar Ahmad Pirzada and was drawn from the Bank by Store-Keeper Muhammad Essa. The amount was required to be paid to the labourers but the payment was actually not made to the concerned labourers. In para.4 of his memo. Of appeal he has also admitted as under:- "That, however, in his capacity as Cashier the appellant had made the entry in the Cash Book being Entry No,17 showing receipt of the amount from the Bank as well as disbursement of the amount to the labourers. Although actually the Store-Keeper Muhammad Essa and the Accountant Anwar Ahmad Pirzada had claimed that the amount had been disbursed among the concerned labourers."
7. ' These two paras. Of the appellant clearly shows that either he was mixed up with the Accountant or he deliberately and intentionally made a false entry in the cash book after showing the disbursement of the amount. Simultaneously he has admitted that the amount was not disbursed, that shows the intention of the appellant, that he deliberately and intentionally made forged entries in the cash book and even otherwise kept quiet for long time and did not report the matter to the authorities when the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad during his inspection noticed defalcation on 28-5-1976 and subsequently it was also pointed out by the Audit Party, then alone the appellant moved an application. The respondent No,1 in his written statement has also pointed out that the convicted person is not entitled to the benefit of rule 5 or 6 as per provisions contained in rule 8 of the E & D Rules, It has also been mentioned in written statement by respondent No,1 that the appellant had also approached the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge Tando Allah and had filed the Suit No,70 of 1990 which was dismissed as such the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge on 8-3-1993 that too was also dismissed. Relying on the admission of the appellant in his memo. Of appeal in paras.3 and 4. This appeal was dismissed on 10-3-2000 by our short-order and these are the reasons for the same. However, no order as to costs.
8. ' Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal this 4th day of April, 2000.