Law:

Section:

ORDER

The petitioner Hafeezullah Khan Khoso has filed this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic Pakistan, 1973 and prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to adjudicate the petitioner's Departmental Appeal dated 31st January 2024 against the order dated 05.1.2024, whereby major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner and recommendation was made for recovery of embezzled amount.

2.  Petitioner's counsel argued that the departmental proceedings violated his fundamental right to be free from illegal and discriminatory treatment. He claimed that the proceedings lacked natural justice, denying the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend himself due to inadequate consideration of evidence and circumstances. He argued that the chart failure was due to heavy rainfall and insufficient storage which is National Logistics Center’s (NLC) responsibility. Despite repeated written requests, no action was taken. However, the respondents failed to address this crucial aspect. He argued that dismissal was a disproportionate and punitive penalty. He claimed that the petitioner was unfairly blamed for systemic logistical failures. He next submitted that the National Logistics Cell (NLC) failed to ensure safe wheat storage, despite repeated requests and warnings from the petitioner regarding inadequate security measures. He submitted that heavy 2022 rains damaged open-stored wheat. He added that instead of addressing the root cause of the damage and holding accountable those responsible for logistical failures, the Respondents issued a show-cause notice to the Appellant, blaming him entirely for the loss. He averred that the petitioner submitted detailed replies with supporting evidence (documentary and video), proving attempts to notify authorities. These were disregarded in the final order. He argued that respondents cited Rule 5(3) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 to bypass a formal inquiry, instead informing the petitioner of the proposed action and requesting a response, which Rule 5(3) of the said Rules provides as follows: