KARACHI, June 2: The Sindh Service Tribunal ordered a fresh inquiry into allegations against a regional director of the Sindh Arid Zone Development Authority (Sazda) and reinstated him in the meanwhile to clothe him with the status of 'civil servant' for the purpose of the proceedings.
M. Momin Bhatti, Sazda regional director for Thar at Mirpurkhas, was issued a show-cause notice in October 1997 by the authority's director-general for obtaining sanction of Rs 9 million for installation of 250 windmills.
Only two windmills worth Rs 900,000 were actually installed and Rs 8.10 million were misappropriated, the notice said. The official denied the charge vehemently.
Bhatti and nine other Sazda officials were placed under suspension two years later and the departmental proceedings commenced. He was awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement in January 2002 and his review petition was rejected by the Sazda director-general in June 2002. He preferred an appeal to the service tribunal against the original and subsequent orders through Advocate M. Nawaz Shaikh. Assistant Advocate-General Tabassum Ghazanfar represented the respondent authority.
The judgment authored by tribunal chairman Justice (retired) Abdul Ghani Shaikh for himself and on behalf of SST members Yosuf Ali Mirza and Nur Ahmed Shah, noted that a procedure other the one contemplated by the Sazda Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1990, was adopted in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
A show-cause notice, the judgment pointed out, was issued by the Sazda director-general in October 1997 in his capacity as 'authority' as defined by Rule 6 (3) of the EDR, though it was the function of the 'authorized officer'. Under the rules, the officer who acts as 'authority' must be higher in rank than the 'authorized officer'.
Surprisingly, the 'authority', on receipt of the appellant's reply to the show-cause notice appointed the Sukkur divisional commissioner as the 'authorized officer'.
The 'authorized officer' issued the appellant the final notice requiring him to show cause why a recommendation for his removal from service should not be made to the 'authority'. After receiving the appellant's reply to the final notice, however, the 'authorized officer' recommended a new inquiry.
A two-member committee was constituted to conduct the new inquiry, which exonerated the appellant. Disagreeing with the findings of the second inquiry, the 'authority' awarded the appellant the major penalty of compulsory retirement. "There is thus a complete departure from the prescribed rules", the judgment said.
Reproducing Rules 5 and 6 of the EDR, the judgment said the initial show-cause notice, the final show-cause notice, the nomination of an inquiry officer or committee, receipt of replies and a finding whether the charge has been proved or not are all functions of the 'authorized officer'.
In the present case, the initial show-cause notice was issued by the 'authority', which also received the reply. Again, the 'authority' ordered an inquiry and also determined the prima facie guilt.
It was only for the purpose of the final show-cause notice that an 'authorized officer' was appointed by the 'authority'. The director-general acted as prosecutor, judge, punishing authority and appellate authority.
On merits, the judgment noted that the inquiry committee concluded in its report that the amount apportioned to the appellant was, in fact, a payment made to a firm as 'mobilization advance' by a former director-general.