Find a Lawyer

Case No. 434/1352 of 1981, decided on 13th January, 1983.

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 ----

----R. 2 (2)‑Joint proceedings ‑"Authority" in case of senior most accused to be same "Authority" in case of other accused ‑Authoris ed Officer in case of senior accused acting as Authorised Officer for all accused himself passing order of major penalty against one of accused in whose case he was also "Authority"‑Such order, held, passed incompetently and void hence set aside and case remanded to Authority to proceed afresh after re‑instatement of appellant accused‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Mir Muhammad v. Government of N. W. F. P. P L D 1981 S C

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

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

Atta Muhammad, ex‑Forest Guard has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has implea. ded Divisional Forest 'Officer, Range Management Division, Chakwal. Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan and Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impug ned orders, dated 20th May, 1980 and 26th July, 1981 beset aside and he be re‑instated in service with full benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge‑sheeted by Divisional Forest Officer, Range Management Division, Chakwal but this charge‑sheet was withdrawn, vide Divisional Forest Officer, Range Management Division, Chakwal order, dated 29th October, 1978 in compliance with the instructions of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore.

Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore, further, appointed Mr. Akhlak Ahmad Khan, Conservator of Forests, Development and Working Plan Circle as Authorised Officer' for proceeding against the appellant alongwith four other officers/officials of the Forest Department vide his order, dated 30th December, 1978. The Authorised Officer' served with a show‑cause notice to the appellant, vide his order, dated 2nd June, 1979. Reply to the show‑cause notice was considered. The appellant was heard in person by the Authorised Officer (who was working at that time as Conservator of Forests, Multan Circle, Multan) on 12th September, 1979 and he was removed from service by order, dated 20th May, 1980 passed by the above Authorised Officer'. The appellant made an appeal to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore, which was rejected by order, dated 26th July, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken a legal objection that in the present case the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab was the Authority' and the Conservator of Forests (Working Plan), Lahore was an Authorised Officer' because a senior officer of the status of Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer was also co‑accused alongwith the appellant. Thus, he has submitted that this "Authorised Officer" within the meaning of Rule 2(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 was not competent to impose a major punishment upon the appellant and it was only within the competency of the Chief Conservator of Forests who was the Authority for S. D. F. O. and the appellant, as envisaged in Rule 2(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 read with Forest Department Delegation of Powers Rules. The learned District Attorney also agreed with the view‑point of the appellant's counsel.

5. Keeping the above circumstances in view, I hold that the impugned order, dated 20th May, 1980 of removal of the appellant from service issued by the respondent No. 2, has been passed by an incompetent authority and is without jurisdiction and is, thus, unlawful. Consequently the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is also not a valid order and is void. These impugned orders are set aside and case is remanded to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore (Authority) who is directed to proceed against the appellant in accordance with the law propounded in Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.‑W. F. P. (P L D 1981 S E 176). It is directed that the appellant be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant, to enable the departmental authorities to proceed against him. The period from the date of his removal from service to that of re‑instatement in service will be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. E Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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