Find a Lawyer

Case No.460 of 1985, decided on 8th October, 1985.

‑‑‑R. 15‑‑Appeal‑‑Powers of appellate authority‑‑Fresh enquiry, can be ordered by appellate authority‑‑Appellate authority setting aside penalty order, remanding case to Authorised Officer with directions for re‑enquiry by specified Enquiry Officer‑‑Order of appellate authority, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable.

Riaz Anwar for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema for Respondents.

‑Syed Ihsan Mehdi Jafery, Tehsildar, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Member, (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and impugned orders, dated 16‑3‑1985 and 16‑6‑1985, be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received in the Board of Revenue about various irregularities committed by the appellant formerly Consolidation Officer, Ferozewala, during consolidation of village Tradewali, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. The Inspection Team of the Board of Revenue examined the consolidation record of the said village and found that grave irregularities had, in fact, been committed by the appellant. On the basis of the report of the Inspection Team the appellant was charge‑sheeted and Mr. Javed Mahmood, AC(S), Lahore, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that all the charges except charges Nos.' 7, 11 and 13, levelled against the appellant stood proved. On 17‑4‑1984, a notice was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why major penalty should not be imposed upon him, but he denied the correctness of the allegations. On 21‑1‑1985 the Commissioner, Lahore Division, afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The Commissioner Lahore Division/ Authorised Officer held that the appellant was unmistakely guilty of the charges proved against .him, and vide impugned order, dated 16‑3‑1985, withheld the two increments of the appellant with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against this he filed appeal before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, who accepted the contention of the appellant that Commissioner was not competent to order second and third inquiry as these powers could only be exercised by the Authority under the provisions of rule 15 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, after attending to the arguments of the parties set aside the orders and remanded the case to the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore/ Authorised Officer, who should appoint the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore, as Enquiry Officer and further directed that inquiry proceedings be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of his order and report sent to the Commissioner, Lahore Division/ Authorised Officer. The appellant has challenged the order, dated 16‑6‑1985, passed by the learned Member, (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as without jurisdiction. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of respondent No. 2, was illegal and not sustainable in law. According to him the respondent No.2 set aside the order of respondent No.1, on the ground that the Authorised Officer had no power to appoint Assistant Commissioner (Sadder) Lahore, as Enquiry officer to hold inquiry after submission of inquiry report by the earlier Enquiry Officer A.D C.(C) Sheikhpur and A.D.C.(Consolidation) Kasur, who happened to be the same person, and further directed that A.D.C. (Consolidation) Lahore be appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold inquiry against the appellant and submit report to respondent No.1. According to him respondent No.2 could only legally set aside the proceedings from the stage the illegality had occurred and should have directed the respondent No.2 proceed afresh from that stage, but had no power to set aside all those proceedings which had been taken place.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that learned Member (Rev.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, was fully competent to order a fresh inquiry under rule 15 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and therefore, no exception could be taken to the said order.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and reproduce the said rule as under:‑

"15‑‑Determination of appeal‑‑(1) The appellate Authority shall cause notice to be given to the appellant and the authority or the Authorised Officer imposing penalty, of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard. The appellate authority shall send for the record of the case if such record is not already with it. After perusing such record and hearing the appellant, if he appears, and the representative of the punishing authority, if he appears, the appellate authority may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering dismiss the appeal or may‑‑

(a) reverse the finding and acquit the accused; or

(b) order and direct that further or fresh inquiry be made; or

(c) after the finding maintaining the penalty or with or without altering the finding, reduce the penalty, or

(d) subject to the provisions of sub‑rule (2), enhance the penalty.

(2) where the appellate authority propose to enhance the penalty, it shall‑‑

(i) by order, in writing, inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken and the grounds of the action; and

(ii) give him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against that action.

(3) In dealing with an appeal, the appellate authority if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, may either take such evidence itself or direct it to be taken by the Authorised Officer and when such evidence has been taken and the appellate authority shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal."

Rule 15 fully discloses that the Member, Board of Revenue is fully competent to order a fresh inquiry, thus it cannot be said that he lacked jurisdiction in this regard. As the learned Member (Rev.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, only remanded the case by exercising his power under the rules, no exception can be taken to this decision and we have no hesitation to maintain the same.

8. In the light of the above discussion we do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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