ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Constt: Pett: NO. D-1167 of 2010.

Dated order with signature of hon’ble Judge.

1. For Katcha Peshi.

2. For order on M.A No.6644/2010.

3. For order on M.A No.3895/2010.

16.01.2013.

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, advocate for the respondents.

Mr. Mohammad Yaqoob Dahani, State Counsel.

======

It appears that the controversy involved in this petition is the genuineness of the document pursuant to which these three petitioners were appointed and they have taken charge. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Deputy Director, Anticorruption was directed to hold inquiry into the appointment of the petitioners and submit compliance report within one month. Such compliance report was furnished by the Deputy Director on 30.10.2012 which contained the inquiry report dated 27.09.2012. The operative part of the report is as under:

Point No.1 orders were issued as certified by DCO/Administrator.

Point No.2, the petitioner proved his plea.

Point NO.3.

1. The petitioner Faheem Raja stated that, the EDO Agriculture refused to accept his joint report which was submitted by the petitioner before him, after his regularization, the denial of EDO Agriculture is based on malafide intention in order to deprive the petitioner form his constitution and/legal right, it is not possible that any person when appointed on any job who has not submitted his duty report without any reason.

2. Though, the order which was issued in his favour of by the Zila Nazim is got verified from present Administrator/DCO Kamber Shahdadkot, who has admitted in writing that, subject orders of regularization are issued and such outward numbers are available in outward register.

During the course of enquiry, it has come on record, that Zila Nazim has been pleased to issue orders in favour of Muhammad Qasim, Muhammad Hashim, Noshad and Jibran Kaleem and respondents have filed the comments with same plea that, Zila Nazim is not competent to regularize the employee, matter has been decided and judicial order was passed regarding the regularization of Zila Nazim by the Honorable Court. Hence, no further comments on the issue whether the Zila Nazim was competent to regularize the candidates or otherwise.

In view of the above facts and record as well as the statement of petitioners and concerned dealing hands, I have come to the conclusion that, the EDO Agriculture Mr.Anwar Ali Bhutto, is responsible for destruction of record of petitioner Faheem Raja Shaikh as the EDO by misusing of his authority not receive the duty report from petitioner Faheem Raja as well as malafidely disown from receiving his joining report, the order of the petitioner Faheem Raja is genuine as certified by DCO/Administrator District Kamber Shahdadkot in above quoted letter, it has come on the record that two petitioners namely Wajid Ali and Muhammad Ahsan are working and their orders are available with respective EDOs, but the documents/orders of petitioner Faheem Raja are not available with EDO as well as concerned sister sections, it is clearly gross misconduct of EDO Anwar Ali Bhutto of Agriculture Department and concerned establishment dealing hand Allah Bux, therefore, it is proposed that, this matter may be placed before ACC-1 Sindh Karachi, seeking approval for registration of case against EDO Anwar Ali Bhutto (BPS-17) and clerk Allah Bux Lorar, Incharge Establishment Table of the said office, both are involved in this matter, and found guilty for the offence of misuse of use their authority and by misusing of their official powers, destroy the documents as well as official Govt. appointment orders in order to deprive the petitioner from his legal right.

It appears that the Deputy Director was appointed by this Court with the consensus of the parties and subsequently such inquiry report was neither challenged nor there was any grievance as far as report is concerned. Learned advocate for the respondent No.3 seeks time for consultation however, such consultation at this stage is not manifested in terms of the inquiry report that has been placed on record. However all that is required by the learned counsel for the

respondent No.3 to seek sometime to determine outstanding salaries which may be deposited or paid to the petitioners. At his request, two weeks’ time is granted to deposit the salaries of the petitioners in compliance of the inquiry report. Since the grievance of the petitioners is limited to only payment of salaries to the petitioners therefore, there is no question left to be decided in this petition, which is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE