Find a Lawyer

Case No. 299/775 of 1986, decided on lot September, 1886.

---Rr. 7-A a 8--Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4- Authorised Officer and Authority have been assigned distinctly different roles--Authorised Officer is not delegates of Authority--Opinion recorded by Authorised Officer cannot be taken as opinion of Authority--Authority has to pass 'appropriate orders' in case Authorised officer exonerated accused--Authorised Officer exonerating accused and forwarding case to Authority--Authority after considering case and show-cause notice to accused and personal hearing imposing penalty of censure--Order passed by Authority, held, not legally exceptionable.

---R. 16--Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 129(1)--Review--Board of Revenue, being not Provincial Government, order passed by it, was not open to review.

Sh. Khurshid Ahmad for Appellant.

Abid Hussain Rizvi, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

--Sh. Zafar Yab Ali, Assistant Secretary (Re-editing of Manuals), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department and the Board of Revenue, Punjab as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that order bearing No. 1106-86/540-Admn.(Il), dated 17-3-1986 whereby his review petition was not entertained, undated order of Secretary to Government of Punjab, Revenue Department censuring the appellant against which the review petition was submitted and order, dated 14-5-1985 conveying the penalty of censure be set aside.

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted on 28-5-1984 on the charge of inefficiency and misconduct in that while was posted as Superintendent E(F) Branch, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, he failed to supervise the work of an Assistant (Muhammad Aahraf Qureshi) of the said E(F) Branch and ensure that the case assigned to the said Assistant was disposed of within the time limit prescribed by the Government with the result that the following important references received from the Commissioner, Multan Division were delayed: -

The finding of the Enquiry Officer was that charges levelled against the appellant had not been substantiated by the prosecution. The Authorised Officer agreed with the Enquiry Officer and 'exonerated' the appellant of the charges levelled against him. Having considered the relevant record, the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the report of the Authorised Officer, the Authority decided to issue show-cause notice for major penalty on the following grounds:-

"That the aforesaid references were admittedly received in the branch but these are deliberately delayed to cover the substitution of the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1981 (1-1-1981 to 7-9-1981) of Syed Hassan Shah, formerly Settlement Tehsildar, Kot Adu, and that as Superintendent you failed to ensure prompt action on these Commissioner's references."

On receipt of reply to the show-cause notice and after hearing the appellant in person, the Authority took a 'lenient view' of his negligence in view of his long satisfactory service and awarded him the minor penalty of censure. The appellant then submitted a review petition against the penalty of 'censure'. However, vide his No.1106-86I 510-Admn.(lI), dated 17-3-1986, the Assistant Secretary (General), Board of Revenue, Punjab informed the appellant that review petition did not lie as Rule 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 was not applicable in this case. Hence this appeal:

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Deputy District Attorney and have perused the relevant record with their assistance. 5. The main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant were that:-

(i) Before formal enquiry was ordered against the appellant, a preliminary enquiry was held against him and he was 'found innocent in the said enquiry. Therefore, there was no justification for starting a formal enquiry against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.

(ii) During the formal enquiry, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were that 'the charges of delay and lack of supervision have not been substantiated by the prosecution.

(iii) Agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Authorised Officer 'exonerated' the appellant. Therefore, the matter stood closed and no further action was contemplated under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 .

(iv) Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi, Assistant was working under the direct control and supervision of Secretary (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab. Therefore, the appellant could not be held responsible for the lapses of this Assistant.

(v) Except for major penalty, the Authorised Officer was the delegatee of the Authority. There was no provision in the Rules for review by the Authority of orders passed by the delegatee.

6. Adopting the para-wise comments of the respondents, the learned District Attorney/ Deputy District Attorney made the following main points: -

(i) In the preliminary enquiry, the appellant was not held responsible for substitution of the Annual Confidential Report of Syed Hassan Shah, Ex-Settlement Tehsildar, Kot Adu but he was not absolved of his responsibility for delay in dealing with some important references received from the Commissioner, Multan Division. The relevant portion of para 10 of preliminary enquiry report reproduced in the appeal reads: 'There is, therefore, no evidence on record to involve Mr. Zafar Yab Ali, Superintendent in this substitution and I find him innocent'. Under the circumstances, there was nothing illegal in starting a regular enquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to investigate the charge of lack of supervision and delay.

(ii) in the formal departmental enquiry, the Authorised Officer concluded his note, dated 1-11-1984 as follows:

'I agree with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and exonerated the accused officer of the charges levelled against him.

Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 clearly lays down that when it is proposed to drop the proceedings, the Authorised Officer shall submit the case to the Authority for orders. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the case stood closed when the Authorised Officer 'exonerated' the appellant.

(iii) It is incorrect that Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi, Assistant was not working under the supervision and control of the appellant. This is borne out by the fact that except for reference at S. No.I para. 3 of this judgment, all other delayed references mentioned in the show-cause notice passed through the hands of the appellant and he put them up to the higher authority.

(iv) It is incorrect that the Authorised Officer is the delegatee of the Authority. Both have distinctly different functions to perform under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Therefore, the recommendations of the Authorised Officer cannot be interpreted as the orders of the Authority.

(v) As regards the impugned order, dated 17-3-1986, Rule 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 did not apply in this case. Therefore, there was no legal compulsion for personal hearing.

The Authority had already given a personal hearing to the appellant before he passed the impugned order imposing the minor penalty of censure.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that there is no substance in the plea advanced by the appellant. The preliminary enquiry does not absolve him of lack of supervision and delay. It is not correct that Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi, Assistant, was not working under him. The charge-sheet refers to the appellant as Superintendent (F) Branch and Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi as Assistant E(F) Branch. Therefore, the official relationship of the appellant with Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi was that of Superintendent and Assistant of the same Branch. Moreover, except for one reference, all other delayed references were received by the appellant from the said Assistant and the appellant put them up to the higher Authority. If this Assistant was not working under him, why did the appellant receive the delayed references from him and submit them to the higher officers. The appellant has no explanation to offer. Obviously, the Assistant was working under the appellant and that is why he received these references from him and submitted them to the higher officers. The fact that the appellant overlooked delay in receiving these references from the Assistant points to lack of supervision on his part.

8. As regards the plea that the case stood closed when the Authorised Officer exonerated the appellant in his note, dated 1-11-1984, Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 is very clear on this point. The relevant portion of the said Rule reads:

'In, case, it is proposed to drop the proceedings the Authorised Officer shall submit the case with all relevant material/ documents to the Authority for appropriate orders'.

It is, therefore, crystal clear that the Authority had full powers to pass 'appropriate orders' after the Authorised Officer in this case exonerated the appellant. Similarly, the plea that the Authorised Officer is the delegatee of the Authority and, therefore, opinion recorded by A the Authorised Officer should be taken as the opinion of the Authority and that it cannot be reviewed by the latter has not legal basis whatsoever. The Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 have assigned distinctly different roles to the Authority and the Authorised Officer.

As regards the impugned order, dated 17-3-1986, the application for review was rightly rejected. The Board of Revenue is not Provincial Government in terms of Article 129(I) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) and Rule 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, is not applicable in this case.

9. Keeping in view what has been stated in the foregoing paragraphs we see no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs.

A.E. Appeal rejected

PS379

Find a Lawyer Near You

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