The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed petitions of revenue officials against disciplinary proceedings against them under the civil servants law for negligence in transfer of 13 acres of government land in Hyderabad on the basis of fraudulent revenue entries.
The petitioners, Aziz Ahmed Chandio and Khalid Abdul Maroof, had challenged the Board of Revenue senior member’s note to the chief secretary in which he recommended disciplinary proceedings against them for negligence with regard to transfer of government land to private respondents in Hyderabad and not pursuing it before the court.
A counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners were civil servants. Maroof was now an assistant commissioner, whereas, Chandio was a section officer [LU] at the Board of Revenue.
The counsel said that due to certain complaints, the impugned note sheet was put up before the chief secretary and it was stated in the paragraphs 10 and 11 that the material brought on record showed that certain officers, including both the petitioners, were involved in misconduct and they should be proceeded under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1973.
He submitted that the chief secretary had also put an additional note of their removal from the current positions.
The counsel submitted that Chandio was not even associated with the fact finding inquiry, which was violative of the Article 10-A of the Constitution. He said the material collected was not confronted to both the petitioners and in this regard both of them had moved applications for provision of documents.
A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Faisal Kamal Alam after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that the paragraphs 10 and 11 had made it clear that both the petitioners along with others would be proceeded under the E&D Rules and if they were not, then petitioners could question the same as per the service law.
The high court observed that Supreme Court had in the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch clarified that terms and conditions of service could not be agitated either in the suit or constitutional jurisdiction in view of the bar contained under the Article 212 of the Constitution.
The high court observed that the disciplinary proceeding against a civil servant was part of term of employment and could not be subject matter of a writ jurisdiction. The SHC observed that prima facie, it appeared that both these petitions were filed with a pre-emptive motive.
The bench observed that official respondents, if they decided to proceed further against the petitioners, would adhere to the service rules and regulations, and dismissed the petitions.
