Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 275/381 of 1978, decided on 24th December, 1979.

‑‑‑ Rr. 6. 7 & 8 read with West Pakistan Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958‑‑‑Proceedings against Tehsildar-- Authorised officer‑Commissioner‑ Entire proceedings initiated and finalized by Board of Revenue‑Contention that powers of Author ised Officer" should have been exercised by Commissioner ‑‑Accept ed‑Case remanded for disposal according to rules.

1977 P L C (C. S. T.) 81 and 1977 P L C (C. S. T.) 99 rel.

.‑In this case the appellant a Naib‑Tehsildar is aggrieved by the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 27th July, 1977, whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. He also assails the final order passed by the full Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 6th August 1978, who converted the penalty of compulsory retirement from service into reversion of the appellant to the rank of Naib-Tehsildar.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the provisions contained in the Board of Revenue, Delegation of Powers Rules, 19x8 read with the Efficiency and. Discipline Rules, 1975, contended that the Authority in this case was the Board of Revenue and the Authorised Officer was the Commissioner concerted. The appellant submitted that according to E. & D. Rules, 1975, the proceedings were to be initiated by the Authority, but the subsequent action including the service of charge -sheet, appointment of Inquiry Officer and determination as to whether the case called for a major or minor penalty, was to be made by the Authorised officer himself. In case a minor penalty was to be imposed, the case wills not required to go before the Authority at all. According to the learned counsel, may be that he was able to convince the Commissioner that the case did not call for any penalty at all. In this regard, he relied upon the two decisions reported as 1977 P L C (C. S. T.) 81 by the Federal Tribunal and 1977 P I, C (C. S. T.) 99 to argue that if the Authority has been authorised to take some proceedings under the lair, it is the aforesaid Authority alone who can exercise the powers in question with these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant contested that the entire proceedings taken by the Board of Revenue against the appellant were without jurisdiction. The contention remained un-controverted.

3. We accordingly accept this appeal and remand the case to the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab to proceed in accordance with law.

Appeal accepted. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.