Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 51 of 1977, decided on 17th April 1979.

‑‑----S. 4‑Contention that since appellant worked in office of City Deputy Collector under control of Deputy Commissioner, authority to award punishment Deputy Commissioner and not Commis sioner‑Karachi meanwhile bifurcated into 3 Districts and before order imposing penalty on appellant implemented and Deputy Commissioner taking charge of new District, establishment continued to remain under administrative control of Commissioner‑Commis sioner, held, competent to impose penalty on appellant, in ‑circum stances.

While holding the post of Stenotypist in the office of City Deputy Collector, Karachi, the appellant was suspended and charge‑sheeted , by the Deputy Commissioner for accepting illegal gratification from one Abdullah on the pretext of issuance of International Driving Licence. The Additional Deputy Commissioner was appointed as Enquiry Officer under rule 5(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, who after holding the formal inquiry found the appellant guilty of the charge. He was, therefore, removed from service under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973, with effect from 17‑1‑1975 by the Commissioner, Karachi under his order dated 8‑3-1978. Being aggrieved by this order, he filed departmental appeal to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue Sind who rejected it on 6‑9‑1976. Hence he has filed the present appeal on 21‑7‑1977, under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

The only plea raised by the counsel for the appellant was that since the appellant was working in the office of City Deputy Collector which was under the control of Deputy Commissioner the competent authority to award the punishment was the Deputy Commissioner and not the Com missioner and hence the impugned order dated 5‑3‑1975 passed by the Commissioner was not valid. , The learned Assistant Advocate‑General however, contended that at the time the report of the Enquiry Officer was received, the Deputy Commissioner had proposed a major penalty. However, in the meantime a new set up of Revenue Offices at Karachi was established and Karachi was bifurcated into 3 Districts but before the order A was implemented and the Deputy Commissioner was made incharge of the District, the establishment continued under the administrative control of the Commissioner till further orders and so the Commissioner imposed the major penalty. Thus the objection that the Deputy Commissioner was the authority is untenable. Even on the merits the appellant was given full opportunity in defend his case before the Enquiry Officer and was found guilty of the charges.

In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.