Find a Lawyer

Case No. .312/1810 of 1;982, decided on 20th March, 1982.

‑ R. 5(1)‑Authority‑Designated in respective Delegation of Powers Rules‑ Cannot. act as "Authorised Officer" as well‑Food grain Inspector processed for misconduct‑Charge‑sheet served and Enquiry Officer appointed by Regional Deputy Director (Authority) instead of directing District Food Controller (Authorised Officer) to initiate proceedings‑ Assumption of role of 'Authorised Officer' by Authority as well, in circumstances, held, rendered proceedings as illegal, without jurisdiction and nullity‑Consequential dismissal order set aside by Service Tribunal and case remanded for fresh proceedings‑Punjab Food Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1978, Sched. Col. 5, Sr. No. 11 [as amended vide Notification No. SOR/III (S&GAD) 15‑7/76, dated 28‑11‑1979].

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Sahib Khan, ex‑Foodgrain Inspector, Food Department, Punjab, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Director Food, Punjab. Lahore, and the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that orders dated 28‑3‑1981 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 29‑5‑1982 passed by respondent No. 1 be set aside and the appellant be declared to be continuing in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the visit of District Food Controller, Jhang, to the P. R. Centre, Shah Jewna, on 31‑1‑1979, where the appellant, Sahib Khan ex‑Foodgrain Inspector, was posted as Food grain Inspector Incharge, it was observed that the accounts of wheat stocks and stock articles in his charge were incomplete. He was directed to produce the relevant record documents in the District Food Controller Office, Jhang, immediately for t4orough checking. Instead of doing so, he absented himself from duty. He was further directed by the District Food Controller, Jhang, to hand over the complete record of stocks/stock articles to Mr. Ali Muhammad, Foodgrain Inspector, by 18‑2‑1979, but he did not do so. On checking of his accounts, misappropriation of Government stocks/stock articles came to the notice. The appellant was consequently, charge‑sheeted vide order dated 27‑7‑1980 by respondent No. 2. An enquiry was also conducted by appointing Mr. Abdullah Yousaf, Store Officer, Sargodha, as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha. On receipt of enquiry report, a show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant having been found guilty of misconduct, the appellant was dismissed from service vide impugned order of Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, dated 28‑3‑1981. The appellant made an appeal to Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, which was rejected vide his order dated 29‑5‑1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that under Punjab Food Department, Delegation of Power Rules, 1978, as amended by notification dated 28‑11‑1979, the ',Authorised Officer", as defined in the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, column 5 of the Schedule appended with these Rules, is the District Food Controller for the appellant mentioned at serial No. 11 (under Head‑III‑Government servants borne on the regional and district cadres) and not the Deputy Director of Food of the region concerned who is the "Authority" as defined in the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, as per column 4 of the Schedule appended with the Rules, mentioned above. The "Authority" should have directed the "Authorised Officer" to proceed in this case as per requirement of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. Thus, the proceedings and impugned order of dismissal from service passed by the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, are illegal and without any jurisdiction. The Deputy Director respondent No. 2 has himself acted as an "Authority" and "Authorised Officer" and thus, provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, have not been followed correctly and the impugned order so passed by the Deputy Director is void ab initio and unlawful.

5. The learned District Attorney also agreed with the view points of the learned counsel for the appellant submitting that there have been some misunderstanding on the part of respondent No . 2, the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, who has acted as an "Authority" as well as an "Authorised Officer. An amendment was issued vide No. SOR‑111 (S&GAD)15‑7/76, dated 28‑11‑1979, by the S&GAD; wherein District Food Controller/ Rationing Controller within the respective district/rationing area was designated as "Authorised Officer" as defined in the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Thus, the respondent No. 2 should not have acted as an "Authority" as well as "Authorised Officer" in this case and he should have directed District Food Controller, the "Authorised Officer" to proceed against the appellant.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth' by the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney that the "Authorised Officer", in this case, as per Punjab Food Department (Delegation of Power) Rules, 1978, as amended by the notification dated 28‑11‑1979, is the District Food Controller for the appellant and the "Authority" is the Deputy Director Food of region concerned. The Deputy Director Food, Sargodha, "Authority" should have directed the "Authorised Officer" to proceed against the appellant as per rule 5(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The "Authority" could not assume the role of the "Authorised Officer" as well; and thus the proceedings conducted in this case by the Deputy Director Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha, are illegal, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of the law.

7. In view of the above analysis, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the competent authority to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law. The appellant shall be re‑instated in service in order to bestow upon him the status of civil servant to enable the departmental authorities to proceed afresh against him. The period from the date of dismissal to that of re‑instatement will be treated as extra ordinary leave, without pay.

There will be no orders as to costs.

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.