Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Case No. 674/1500 of 1981, decided on 23rd June, 1982.
‑‑‑Rr. 7 & 8‑Dismissal from service‑Penalty order passed by authority other than competent Authority‑‑‑‑Void ab initio‑Patwari accused‑Competent authority Assistant Commissioner‑Penalty order passed by Deputy Commissioner‑Void ab initio‑Subsequent appellate order and those in revision also not sustainable‑Impugned dismissal order set aside by Service Tribunal and case remanded to Assistant Commissioner concerned‑Punjab Service, Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.
Haji Mushtaq Ahmad Aqil for Appellant.
Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
Khan Muhammad formerly Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order dated 15‑9‑1981 passed by respondent 1 dismissing the representation/revision of the appellant order dated 17‑6‑1979f passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 26‑12‑1978 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the appellant from service.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that tile impugned orders be set aside as being without lawful authority void ab initio and the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted while serving as Patwari, Halqa Jhalarin, Tehsil Alipur, District Muzaffargarh, for inefficiency and. not showing diligence in the perfor mance of his duty. An Authorised Officer and Enquiry Officer was appointed in this case, and found the appellant guilty. Respondent No. 3 served the appellant with show‑cause notice on 26‑9‑1978, saying why a penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed as required under Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975, The appellant submitted his explanation which was found unsatisfactory and appellant was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner which failed and his revision before the M. B. R. also met the sane fate. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised an important point of law and has argued that the competent authority in the case of Patwari/appellant could only be Assistant Commissioner and not the Deputy Commissioner. In view of this fatal legal flaw, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that first order being void, all other orders passed in consequence thereof would be nullity in the eyes of law and would be liable to be set aside.
5. Without going into the merits of this case I would first of all like to resolve the issue involved in this case whether Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner would be competent authority in the case of the appellant. In N L R 1980 Tr. 202 and in various judgments of this Tribunal which have now attained finality, as these were not appealed against before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the law settled is that Assistant Commissioner would be the only competent authority in case of the appellant and not the Deputy Commissioner. In view of the law so settled I have no hesitation to hold that the order of dismissal initially passed by the Deputy Commissioner, is void ab initio. The first order being void, all other orders passed on the said order would also be of no legal effect.
6. In view of the above I, proceed to set aside all the impugned orders and remand the case to the Assistant Commissioner concerned to take any action against the appellant, if so advised, as he only would be the competent authority in case of Patwaris.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer