Find a Lawyer

Case No. 425/1832 of 1982, decided on 2nd May, 1983.

‑‑ R. 4 (I) (b) (i)‑Reduction to lower grade or post ‑ Person can be reduced in rank only if reached such rank by promotion ‑Directly appointed to particular grade on rank‑Cannot be revert ed to post or rank never occupied.

‑‑ R. 18 (2)‑Order, revision of‑Enhancement of penalty show‑cause notice issued within 3 months from communication of order sought to be revised‑Revision order passed after expiry of 3 months‑Con tention that revision order having been passed after expiry of 3 months was not valid, in circumstances, repelled.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

A. G. Hamayun District Attorney for Respondent.

Faqir Hussain has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore, Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore and the District Food Controller, Gujranwala, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 7th August, 1982 be set aside. How ever, he has claimed no relief against the order of the District Food Controller, Gujranwala, which according to him, be accepted with grace.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was directly appointed as Foodgrains Inspector, vide order dated 1st July, 1974 was charge‑sheeted by respondent No. 3 with the allegation that during the course of inspection on 19th January, 1982 while the appellant was posted at Kot Ledha as Foodgrains Inspector, Incharge Centre, it was detected that 521 bags of indigenous wheat 1981‑82 scheme locally purchased and stored in private godowns was still lying in balance at appellant's centre and that the balance had not been cleared. He was charge‑sheeted for responsible of a loss of Rs. 95,782.50 being the cost of said 521 bags of wheat. The appellant submitted a detailed reply to the charge‑sheet in which he pleaded his innocence. Mr. Khalid Mir, Assistant Food Controller, Eminabad was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After completion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Report was sent to the competent authority, who, vide his order dated 2nd May, 1982 awarded minor punishment without cumulative effect, to the appellant. Sometime later a show‑cause notice dated 10th July, 1982 was issued by the Secretary, Food Department Punjab, as to why the punishment already awarded to the appellant, be not enhanced. The appellant submitted his explanation, but the same did not find favour with the said authority and ultimately, vide order dated 7th August, 1982 respondent No. 1 imposed major penalty of reduction to the lower post of Foodgrains Supervisor, upon the appellant. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have examined the record of this case care fully with their assistance.

5. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this case is, that there is no provision under the law by which the Secretary Food could reduce the rank of the appellant lower to that to which the appellant was initially appointed. According to the learned counsel, the appellant could only be reverted to the lower post of Food grains Supervisor in case the appellant was initially appointed as Foodgrains Supervisor and was subsequently promoted as a Foodgrains Inspector. It has been submitted that according to the provisions of rule 18 (2) the impugned action could only be taken within a period of three months from the date of the communication of the first order. The first order was passed on 2nd May, 1982.'And the impugned order could not be taken after the lapse on three months i. e. on 7th August, 1982. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that it would be useless to enter into the same as the appellant did not challenge the imposition of minor penalty awarded by the District Food Controller (respondent No. 3) and had accepted the decision of the said authority.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and called upon the learned District Attorney to defend the main objection of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the competency of the Secretary Food, respon dent No. 1, to pass the impugned order by which the appellant has been reduced in rank. Learned District Attorney could not advance any cogent argument to defend this legal position. It is a settled principle of law that a person can only be reduced in rank, if he has reached the rank by promotion. In the present case, the appellant was recruited directly as Foodgrains Inspector, therefore, he cannot be reverted to a post which h never occupied. In this manner, we have no hesitation to hold that res pondent No. 1 has passed an order which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even on merits, we find that the order of D. F. C. withholding one increment, meets the end of justice.

7. With regard to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 1 can only pass the order within a period of three months of the earlier order so passed against him, we have examined this point and find that, vide memo. of appeal, in the ground (b) of appeal, it has been stated by the appellant that first order was passed on 2nd May, 1982 and communicated to him on the same day. Similarly it has been accepted in para. 8 of the appeal that the show‑cause notice was issued by the Secretary on 10th July, 1982. In view of the above it is manifestly clear that the action was taken within the period of 3 months, therefore, we repel the argument in this behalf so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

8. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 7th August, 1982 passed by respondent No.1, and maintain the earlier order of the District Food Controller, respondent No. 3, against which the appellant did not file any appeal. There will be no order as to costs. The judgment be communicated to the parties.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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