To,

The Honourable
District & Sessions Judge,
H Y D E R A B A D

Subject:- ENQUIRY REPORT.

Ref: Letter No.Estt/- 1065 of 2013 dated 29.01.2013 of

District Court, Hyderabad

Respected Sir,

On receipt of enquiry papers from the office of

Honourable District Judge, Hyderabad under his letter No.Estt/1065
Dated 29.01.2013 enquiry was conducted as desired through above
r e f er r e d l e t t er a n d s t a t e m e n t s of c o m p l a i n a n t Z e e s h a n , t h e o p p o n e n t
Mr. Abdullah the then Reader, Mr. Mohammad Ubaid and Sajjad Anwar
S u n n y , t h e t h e n C l e r k s o f t h e C o u r t of l e a r n e d V I I t h A d d i t i o n a l
District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the learned Presiding
O f f i c e r o f t h e C o u r t of V I I t h A d d i t i o n a l D i s t r i c t & S e s s i o n s J u d g e ,
H y d e r a b a d M r . A b d u l L a t i f A b b a s i w er e r e c o r d e d .
P e r u s e d t h e e n t i r e f i l e of e n q u i r y p a p e r s .
The facts giving r is e to this enquiry are that the
c o m p l a i n a n t Z e es h a n m o v e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n d a t e d 1 9 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 2 a g a i n s t
Mr. Abdul Latif Abbasi the learned VIIth Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad stating therein that he had filed an application U/s
498 Cr.P.C in Crime No.99 of 2012 of Police Station B-Section
L a t i f a b a d H y d e r a b a d f o r g r a n t of p r e - a r r es t i n t e r i m b a i l b e f o r e t h e
Honourable District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same was
t r a n s f er r e d t o l e a r n e d V I I t h A d d i t i o n a l D i s t r i c t & S es s i o n s J u d g e ,
H y d e r a b a d , w h o g r a n t p r e - a r r es t i n t e r i m b a i l t o t h e a p p l i c a n t a n d
o t h e r s i n t h e s u m o f Rs . 3 0 , 0 0 0 / - ea c h a n d a d j o u r n e d t h e c a s e t o
2 5 . 0 9 . 2 0 1 2 f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n o r ot h e r w i s e . T h e a p p l i c a n t o n t h e v e r y
s a m e d a y a r r a n g e d S a v i n g C e r t i f i c a t e s a n d s u b m i t t e d f o r s ur e t y . T h e
R e a d e r o f t h e C o u r t t o o k a f f i d a v i t o f s ur e t y . O n 2 8 .0 9 . 2 0 1 2 t h e
applicant appeared before the Court, the learned VIIth Additional
D i s t r i c t & S e s s i o n s J u d g e , H y d e r a b a d r e c a l l e d t h e b a i l or d e r o n t h e
g r o u n d t ha t t h e a p p l i c a n t f a i l e d t o f u r n i s h s u r et y a n d t o a p p e a r
before I.O of the case. It is alleged that the said order is passed at
t h e b e h es t of o n e S y e d A i j a z A l i Z a i d i i n r o d e r t o b o w d o w n b e f or e
the complainant. It is further alleged that the learned VIIth
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is a corrupt judge and
also lacking integrity and competency. His
-2-
orders are written by the o ut s i d e r s . Many A d v o c a t es have got
t r a n s f er r e d t h e i r c a s e s f r o m t h e C o ur t o f s a i d l e a r n e d J u d g e .
I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e H o n o u r a b l e D i s t r i c t & S es s i o n s J u d g e ,
H y d e r a b a d o n r e c e i p t of s a i d a p p l i c a t i o n c a l l c o m m e n t s f r o m t h e
l e a r n e d V I I t h A d d i t i o n a l D i s t r i c t & S e s s i o n s J u d g e , H y d e r a b a d a n d a ls o
c a l l e d e x p l a n a t i o n f r o m M / s A b d u l l a h R e a d e r , S a j j a d c l e r k a n d Mr .
U b a i d C l e r k . I t f ur t h e r a p p e a r s t h a t t h e l e a r n e d V I I t h A d d i t i o n a l
D i s t r i c t & S e s s i o n s J u d g e , H y d e r a b a d f u r n is h e d h i s c o m m e n t s , w h e r e i n
h e d e n i e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a n d s u b m i t t e d t h a t s ur e t y p a p e r s w e r e
p r o d u c e d b ef o r e h i m , w h i l e Mr . A b d u l l a h R e a d e r i n h i s e x p l a n a t i o n
h a s s u b m i t t e d t ha t o n t h e r e l e v a nt d a t e h e w a s o n c a u s a l l e a v e a n d
d i d n ot k n o w a b o u t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t a k e n i n b a i l a p p l i c a t i o n . M r .
Sajjad Clerk in his explanation has submitted that the ordered was
passed in Bail Application in late hours and learned Presiding Officer
w a s i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e a c c u s e d w a n t t o f ur n i s h s ur e t y p a p e r s o n t h e
same date but the learned presiding officer asked him to make
n e c e s s a r y c o m p l i a n c e a n d h e w i l l p a s s o r d e r of a c c e p t a n c e of s ur e t y
tomorrow and then he went away. He stated that he made compliance
of verbal direction and had not done anything at his own accord.
It appears that the complainant in his application has
l e v e l e d a l l e g a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e l e a r n e d p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r a n d ha s n o t
levled any allegation against the members of the staff of said court.
I t i s s t a t e d t h a t t h e l e a r n e d P r e s i d i n g Of f i c e r h a d r e c a l l e d t h e b a i l
o r d e r a t t h e b e h es t o f A i j a z A l i Z a i d i i n or d e r t o c o m p e l t h e a p p l i c a n t
to bow down before the complainant. It appears that the applicant
n e i t h e r s u m m o n e d n o r e xa m i n e d s a i d A i j a z A l i n o r e x a m i n e d a n y o t h e r
p e r s o n t o p r o v e h i s a b o v e a l l e g a t i o n . I t i s a ls o a d m i t t e d p o s i t i o n t h a t
t h e a p p l i c a n t d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e o r d e r of r e c a l l i n g b u t o r d e r
p a s s e d b y t h e l e a r n e d V I I t h A d d i t i o n a l D i s t r i c t & S es s i o ns J u d g e ,
Hyderabad before the Honourable High Court. The other allegation of
a p p l i c a n t r e l a t es t o t h e a l l e g e d c o r r u p t i o n o f l e a r n e d V I I t h A d d i t i o n a l
District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the writing of his judgment
a n d o r d e r s b y t h e o ut s i d e r s . I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t i n h i s
s t a t e m e n t r e c o r d e d d u r i n g e n q u i r y p r o c e e d i n g s , h a s n ot d e p o s e d a
s i n g l e wo r d t o t h e a b o v e e f f e c t n o r h e d e p o s e d a s i n g l e w o r d a g a i n s t
a n y of t h e m e m b e r o f t h e s t a f f o f c o n c e r n e d C o u r t .
-3-

I n t h e a b o v e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d t h e m a t er i a l a v a i l a b l e o n
r e c o r d , I a m h u m b l e v i e w t h a t t h er e is n o s u b s t a n c e a n d i o t a of t r ut h
i n t h e a l l e g a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a n t . I t h e r ef o r e , p r o p o s e t h a t t h e a b o v e
subjected enquiry may be filed.
T h e r e p o r t i s r es p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d h er e w i t h a s d e s i r e d .
OFFICE OF THE IST ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
No. of 2014 Dated: 05.09.2014

To,

The Honourable
District & Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad

Subject: ENQUIRY REPORT IN RESPECT OF MR. SYED ZEESHAN HYDER

ZAIDI CLERK

Reference: Letter No.17399 Dated 15.11.2012 of Honourable District

Court, Hyderabad

Respected Sir,

I have the honour to submit that in compliance of letter under reference,

Enquiry against Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi, Clerk was conducted in respect of forging
signature of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad Khan over letter
No.82 of 2012 Dated 29.02.2012, the statements of Nadeem Nawaz Clerk of District Court,
Hyderabad, Mr. Mehboob Ali Palari, Reader of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-V,
Hyderabad (Ex-Reader of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad
Khan) and Mr. Nadir Ali Shah the then learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando
Mohammad Khan, (presently posted as learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Kingri) were
recorded. The Establishment Clerk Mr. Nadeem Nawaz has produced copy of letter No:266 of
2012 dated 23-2-2012 issued by the Learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando
Muhammad Khan, served copy of explanation notice, copy of reply to explanation furnished by
the Official named above, bearing endorsement No: 82 of 2012 dated 29-2-2012, copy of letter
bearing No: 2952 of 2012 dated 3-3-2012 issued by the District Court, Hyderabad to the
Learned Civil Judge & JM-I, Tando Muhammad Khan for verification, copy of order passed by
Honourable the then District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, copy of letter bearing No: 313 of
2012 dated 5-3-2012 issued by the Learned Civil Judge & JM-I, Tando Muhammad Khan
regarding verification of endorsement No 82 dated 29-2-2012, copy of explanation notice
bearing No: 4621 of 2012 dated 17-3-2012, copy of application submitted by the incumbent for
grant of time, copy of reply to explanation furnished by the incumbent , received under
endorsement No: 413 dated 2-4-2012 order passed dated 7-4-2012 on the back side, served
copy of Final Show Cause Notice issued by the Honourable the then District Judge, Hyderabad
under endorsement No: 6542 dated 10-4-2012, copy of application
-2-

for grant of time submitted by the incumbent, copy of reply to Final Show Cause Notice
received on 19-4-2012, copy of order bearing No: 73 dated 7-6-2012 (Endorsement No:9698
dated 7-6-2012) passed by the Honourable the then District Judge, Hyderabad, copy of
Departmental Appeal filed by the incumbent, copy of comments furnished by the then
Honourable District Judge, Hyderabad, copy of order dated 20-10-2012 passed by the
Honourable High Court of Sindh, Karachi in the Departmental Appeal filed by the incumbent,
copy of Charge Sheet, copy of reply to the Charge Sheet. The then Reader of learned Civil
Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad Khan Mr. Mehboob Ali Palari has stated that
the incumbent Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi remained absent from his duty from 22.02.2012
to 23.02.2012 without intimation and he was directed by the learned Presiding Officer to
prepare report of the said Clerk and sent the same to the Honourable District and Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad. He stated that he prepared report and sent the same under Reference
bearing outward No.266 dated 23.02.2012. Mr. Nadir Shah learned the then Civil Judge &
Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad Khan has stated that on 23.02.2012 he was Civil Judge
and Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad Khan and Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi was
posted as Clerk in his Court, who remained absent on 22.02.2012 and 23.02.2012, he reported
the matter to the Honourable District Judge, Hyderabad with his signature. He further stated
that he received letter from Honourable District Court, Hyderabad for verification of his
signature over letter of explanation furnished by Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi with his
signature. He submitted verification report through letter No.313 dated 05.03.2012. He stated
that letter of explanation sent by Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi Clerk was bearing his forged
signature. The accused Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi despite repeated notices, failed to
appear before the undersigned for his statement.
Perused the record. Perusal of statement of learned the then Civil Judge &
Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad Khan shows that he in his statement has clearly stated
that his signature was forged on the letter No.8212 dated 29.02.2012. Record shows that
Letter No.8212 dated 29.02.2012 vide which the explanation of Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi
Clerk was submitted before the Honourable District Judge, Hyderabad is available on record
and so also the verification letter No.313 dated 05.03.2012 sent by learned the then Civil
Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad Khan (Syed Nadir Ali Shah) on record. I myself
compared the signatures over both the letters and find that the signatures over Letter No.8212
dated 29.02.2012 is quite different from the admitted signature of Mr. Syed Nadir Ali Shah the
then learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad Khan over verification
Letter No.313 dated 05.03.2012 is quite different. Thus, I am of
-3-

the humble view that the explanation submitted by Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi Clerk with
endorsement No.82/12 dated 29.02.2012 bearing alleged signature of Mr. Syed Nadir Ali Shah
the then learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I, Tando Mohammad Khan has been forged
by Clerk MR. Syed Zeeshan Hyder zaidi.
In view of the material available on record, I find that the charges against the
accused Clerk Mr. Syed Zeeshan Hyder Zaidi are proved and the recommendation is hereby
made for awarding him major penalty under Sindh Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973.

The report is respectfully submitted herewith as desired.

OFFICE OF THE IST ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
No. of 2014 Dated: 05.09.2014

To,

The Honourable
District & Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad

Subject: ENQUIRY REPORT IN RESPECT OF MISSING OF r & p OF

SUMMARY PAPER IN CRIME NO.67 OF 2009 (THE STATE VS
FAISAL QURESHI) U/S 324, 415(i) PPC OF POLICE STATION
BHITAI NAGAR, AGAINST SYED AZEEMUDDIN SHAH, CLERK

Reference: Letter No.4453 of 2014 Dated 18.03.2014 of Honourable

District Court, Hyderabad

Respected Sir,

I have the honour to submit that Enquiry on the above noted subject matter
was conducted by the undersigned. In this regard, the statements of accused Syed
Azeemuddin the then Clerk of Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-III, Hyderabad was
recorded. He in his statement has stated that he was working as Clerk in the Court of Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate-III, Hyderabad and in the month of June, 2009 he was
transferred from that Court and handed over the charge to Mr. Shahabuddin Memon Clerk. He
stated that the Road Certificate does not contain his signature but it contains the signature of
Mr. Nazeer Memon the then Clerk of the said Court. He stated that on 26.08.2009, he was not
working as Clerk in the said Court.
Perusal of record shows that previously Enquiry in the same subject matter
was conducted by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad who had recorded
statements of Mr. Syed Azeemuddin Shah Clerk, Mr. Imtiaz Ali Thebo Clerk, Mr.Shahabuddin
Memon Clerk, Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Clerk and Mr. Mohammad Hanif Warsi Reader, who remained
posted in the court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-III, Hyderabad at the relevant time.
Record further shows that the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has
submitted Enquiry report through Letter No.42 dated 23.01.2014 whereby he had held Mr.
Azeemuddin Shah Clerk responsible for missing of Summary Paper. Enquiry papers reveal that
Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Memon the then Clerk in his statement has admitted that he had received
Summary Papers of the case in question and he handed over the same to Mr. Mohammad Hanif
Warsi, the then Reader of the said Court. Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Memon in his statement has not
stated that he had given the said papers to Mr. Azeemuddin Shah Clerk, Incharge or in any
manner. It further appears that Mr. Mohammad Hanif Warsi the then Reader of the said Court
in his statement
-2-

he neither denied nor disputed the missing of Summary Papers. On the contrary he stated that
he did not know Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Memon had handed over him summary papers of the said
case.
In view of the material available on record, I find that MR. Azeemuddin Shah
Clerk is not responsible for missing of Summary Papers.

The Enquiry report is respectfully submitted herewith as

desired.
OFFICE OF THE IST ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
No. of 2014 Dated: 14.10.2014

To,

The Honourable
District & Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad

Subject: ENQUIRY REPORT IN RESPECT OF MISSING OF LATE

SUBMISSION OF RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS OF F.C.SUIT
NO.406 OF 1992 AND F.C.SUIT NO.313 OF 1997 OF THE
COURT OF 2ND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HYDERABAD

Reference: Office letter No. 16480 Dated 08-10-2012 of District Court

Hyderabad.

Respected Sir,

1. I have the honour to submit that on receipt of aforesaid inquiry, the

statements of Mr. Aijaz Hussain Baloch the then Reader of the court of 2 nd Senior Civil Judge

Hyderabad and Mr. Abdul Shahid the then clerk of the court of 2 nd Senior Civil Judge

Hyderabad were recorded.

2. Mr. Aijaz Hussain Baloch the then reader has stated that he had not received

the record and proceedings of FC Suit Bo. 406 of 1992, however he admitted that he had

received record and proceedings of FC Suit No. 313 of 1997 and after writing case diary he

delivered the same to Mr. Abdul Shahid the then clerk without fixing the date of hearing under

the impression that date will be fixed with consent of the parties.

3. Mr. Abdul Shahid the then clerk has stated that he had received record and

proceedings of FV Suit No. 406 of 1992 and handed over the same to Mr. Aijaz Hussain Baloch

the then COC of the court of 2 nd Senior Civil Judge Hyderabad but thereafter said record and

proceedings were not returned back to him. He further stated that he did not receive the

record and proceedings of FC Suit No. 313 of 1997.

 -2-

4. From the statements of both the officials it appears that the record and

proceedings of both the suits were received in the said court and at the relevant time both of

them were posted in the said court and in my humble view were responsible for custody of the

same. I therefore recommended the case of both the officials for awarding minor penalty

under the Civil Servants (E & D) Rules as both the record and proceedings were put up late due

to negligency of the above said officials. However no bad intention is appearing on their part.

The Enquiry report is respectfully submitted herewith as

desired.
OFFICE OF THE IST ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
No. of 2014 Dated: 14.10.2014

To,

The Honourable
District & Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad

Subject: ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF MISSING OF CASE PROPERTY IN

SESSIONS CASE No. 265 OF 2012 AND IN SESSIONS CASE No. 69
of 2011 OF THE COURT of 4th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
HYDERABAD

Respected Sir,

I have the honour to submit on receipt of inquiry papers notices were issued to
the official/ incumbent Abdul Sattar Umrani but despite service he neither submitted any
written reply nor come forward to get recorded his statement. However statement of
Establishment clerk namely Mr. Syed Mujtaba Shah was recorded, who has produced copy of
report made against incumbent Abdul Sattar Umrani by the learned 4 th Additional District
Judge Hyderabad. He has also produced copy of rout clerk in the court of Civil Judge & JM
Tando Allahyar had received case properties.
The allegations against the official/ incumbent Abdul Sattar Umrani is that
while posted clerk in the court of Civil Judge & M Tando Allahyar had received case properties
of Crime No. 504 of 2010 U/S 17(3) HO, 392 PPC & Crime No. 505 of 2010 U/S 324, 353, PPC of
PS Tando Allahyar i-e One TT pistol of 30 bore alongwith three live bullets of 30 bore, 44 TCs
Sr. No. 16217604 to Sr. No. 16217647 of each Rs. 10000/- total amounting Rs. 440000/-, one
TT pistol of 30 bore alongwith four live bullets and cash worth Rs. 54195/- in crime No. 507 of
2010 U/S 13-D AO. It appears that Mr. Abdul Sattar Umrani was called on by the learned 4 th
Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad to produce the case properties but every time he had
been seeking time on one or other ground, however finally on dated 24-03-2012 the then
Honourable Sessions Judge Hyderabad ordered for issuance of show cause notice but despite
issuance of show cause notice the said clerk even failed to submit his reply to show cause
notice and thereafter charge sheet was given to him and enquiry was ordered against him.
 -2-

It appears that the official/ incumbent Abdul Sattar Umrani had been seeking
time by moving applications, whereby he had been requesting that he will produce the case
properties on next date of hearing. Thus it appears that Mr. Abdul Sattar Clerk had not denied
the receipt of aforesaid case properties in his charge. It further appears that the said clerk
despite several opportunities failed to appear and get his statement recorded. As such I give
strong presumption that he had nothing to say.
In view of the material available before me, I hold that Mr. Abdul Sattar
Umrani Clerk had received the above noted case properties of the above noted case in his
charge and made misappropriation of the same. It is therefore recommended that major
penalty of removing him from service under Sindh Civil Service (E & D) Rules be imposed
against him.
The Enquiry Report is respectfully submitted herewith as desired.
OFFICE OF THE IST ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
No. of 2014 Dated: 14.10.2014

To,

The Honourable
District & Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad
Subject: ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF MISSING OF SBBL No. 13456 IN CRIME
NO. 139 OF 2009 U/S 13-D Arms ORDINANCE OF PS BULRI
SHAH KARIM.

Reference: Letter No. E/ 13642 dated 16-09-2014 of District Court

Hyderabad

Respected Sir,

I have the honour to submit that an enquiry against Mr.

Abdul Sattar Clerk in respect of missing of subjected property was
ordered and the learned 2nd Additional District Judge Hyderabad was
appointed as inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry in the matter and the
learned inquiry officer after conducting inquiry fixed responsibility upon
Mr. Abdul Sattar Clerk vide order dated 29-02-2012 and submitted such
report to the Honourable District Judge Hyderabad. The then Honourable
District Judge Hyderabad on dated 29-02-2012 issued final show cause
notice to incumbent Abdul Sattar Umrani and thereafter on 07-09-2012
ordered for sending the matter to the circle officer (AEC) Hyderabad
necessary action against Mr. Abdul Sattar Clerk by the Anti-Corruption
police. On dated 02-11-2012 the then Honourable District Judge
Hyderabad ordered regular inquiry against the incumbent and as such
show cause notice alongwith statement of allegations were given to and
served upon incumbent. On 27-09-2013 the inquiry papers were received
to this court for conducting inquiry in the matter. On receipt, of inquiry
papers, statement of Azeemuddin clerk was recorded, who produced
copies of charge furds in respect of handing over and taking over of case
properties and stated that on 19-08-2010 he was posted as clerk in the
court of learned Civil Judge & JM Tando Muhammad Khan on that day, he
received charge of case properties i-e SBBL gun without number and two
live cartridges of crime No. 139 of 2009 U/S 13-DAO PS Bulri Shah Karim,
which was not properly sealed and on 28-09-2010 he handed over the
charge of aforesaid case properties to Mr. Akhtar Shaikh Clerk on his
transfer.
 -2-

The statement of establishment Clerk namely Syed Ahmed

Mustafa Shah was also recorded, who has produced application regarding
missing of case property, deposition of complainant Allahdino, deposition
ASI Abdul Sattar, Deposition off Accused Abdul sattar Umrani, deposition
of Clerk Syed Azeemuddin, copy of furnished by Civil Judge & JM Tando
Muhammad Khan, copy of report SHO Ps Bulri Shah Karim alongwith copy
of RC and FIR, copy of letter issued by Senior Superintendent of Police
Tando Muhammad Khan, copy of order of Honourable District Judge
Hyderabad, copy of explanation furnished by Abdul Sattar Umrani Clerk,
copy of order passed by Honourable District Judge Hyderabad, copy of
letter for conducting inquiry, copy of inquiry report, coy of show cause
notice alongwith reply to show cause notice, copy of order dated 07-09-
2012, copy of letter addressed to circle officer ACE Hyderabad, copy of
FIR, copy of order dated 02-11-2012, copy of charge sheet alongwith
statement of allegations and reply to show cause notice, copy of letter
for conducting inquiry.
The incumbent/ Official Mr. Abdul Sattar Umrani despite
service of notices upon him failed to appear.
The allegations against the incumbent is that while posted as
clerk in the court of Civil Judge & JM Tando Muhammad Khan, he
received SBBL Gun bearing No. 13456 in crime No. 139 of 2009 U/S 13-D
AO of PS Bulri Shah Karim.
It may be submitted that the case against accused of above
noted crime was tried and ended in to acquittal of the accused.
Thereafter the owner of the gun made application for return of gun and
according to him, when gun was being returned to him, he found that it
was not his gun, therefore he made complaint before the Honourable
District Judge Hyderabad.
Mr. Azeemuddin Clerk has sated that he received charge of
case properties from MR. Abdul Sattar Clerk but the said case property
sealed. He produced charge Furd and it appears that in the charge sheet
the case property of crime No. 139 of 2009 of PS Bulri Shah Karim was
handed over to Mr. Azeemuddin Clerk and it further appears that in the
charge Furd the particulars of the said SBBL gun including it are not
mentioned. The RC available on record reveals that SBBL gun No. 13456
was received by Mr. Abdul Sattar Clerk from PS Bulri Shah Karim. It may
 -3-

be observed that earlier statement of Mr. Azeemuddin Clerk was also

recorded in this matter on dated 13-04-2012 and subsequently statement
of said clerk was recorded on 23-09-2014 and on both the occasion Mr.
Azeemuddin Clerk has stated that he had received SBBL Gun as case
property of crime No. 139 of 2009 PS Bulri Shah Karim but it was without
number. It maybe observed that earlier statement of Mr. Abdul Sattar
Umrani Clerk was recorded by the then inquiry officer, wherein Mr. Abdul
Sattar Umrani has stated that he had handed over the charge of case
property i-e SBBL Gun bearing No. 13456 nor he has cross examined Mr.
Azeemuddin Clerk to whom he had delivered charge of the case
properties on both the occasion of recording statements of Mr.
Azeemuddin. Thus it appears that Mr. Abdul Sattar Umrani Clerk had
received SBBL Gun No. 13456 of PS Bulri Shah Karim in his charge but he
did not Mr. Azeemuddin Clerk. I therefore fix responsibility of missing
and replacement of the actual case property by some other property
upon Mr. Abdul Sattar Umrani Clerk.
The Enquiry Report is respectfully submitted herewith as desired.
OFFICE OF THE IST ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
No. of 2014 Dated: 24.11.2014

To,
The Honourable
District & Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad
Subject: ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF MISSING OF CASE PROPERTY IN CR.
CASE NO.494/2010 STATE VS REHMAN KHOSO, CRIME NO.222
OF 2010 U/S 111 P.E.H.O OF P.S QASIMABAD.

Reference: Letter No. Estt/20103 of 2011 dated 03.12.2011 of District

Court Hyderabad

Respected Sir,

I have the honour to submit that an enquiry against Mr. Shahan Hussain Clerk in
respect of missing of case property was ordered and the learned 2 nd Additional District Judge
Hyderabad was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in the matter and then
same was received to this Court by way of transfer. After receiving above Enquiry, the
undersigned recorded the statement of Reporting Officer Mrs. Farhat Mehtab Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate-X, Hyderabad so also statement of incumbent, who produced photocopy of
list of case properties. During proceedings in Cross examination, learned Reporting Officer
admitted that charge of case properties were taken over by Mr. Akhtar Shaikh Clerk from the
present official in her presence, further admitted that the instant case property was being
produced on each and every date of hearing when the present official was posted, thereafter,
it was missing and she further admitted that no body had placed before her any written
complaint in the shape of submission note regarding missing of case property. She has further
admitted that on the next date of taking over the charge, Mr. Akhtar Shaikh Clerk shown her
entire list of case properties. The official incumbent Mr. Shahan Hussain in his statement has
also shifted the burden in respect of missing of subject noted case property upon Mr. Akhtar
Shaikh.
From the enquiry, it appears that the liability in respect of missing of
subjected case property lies upon Mr. Akhtar Shaikh, Clerk.

The Enquiry Report is respectfully submitted herewith as desired .