' JUSTICE (RETD.) RIAZ KAYANI (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Abdul Razzaq, former Patwari Lahore Cantt.
Has brought appeal No,94 of 2004 along with another Patkvari Israr Ahmad also of Lahore Catt his appeal numbered as 95 of 2004, both directed against orders, dated 9-12-2003 and 15-11-2003 passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) Lahore respectively, dismissing the appeals of the appellants and maintaining the order, dated 1-9-2003 by Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. Whereby appellants were removed from service while proceeding under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Since common questions of fact and of law are involved, I intend to dispose of both the appeals through this single order.
2. Brief history of the case, necessary to be provided for correct understanding of the facts of the case leading to the adjudication of the appeals is that on the relaxation of the ban on recruitment of Patwaris the selection committee selected the appellants as patwaris for Tehsil Cantt. Lahore, on merit. Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Tehsil Cantt., arraigned as Respondent No,2 notified the names of the appellants along with others to the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide letter, dated 6-8-2002 to be finalized for recruitment as patwaris and vide order, dated 30-11-2002, the appointment of the appellants was notified as patwaris selected for Tehsil Cantt. Lahore. The Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. Was addressed by the Director Land Records, Punjab, Lahore on 17-12-2002 that the Senior Member Board of Revenue, has cancelled the appointment of the appellants and declared them ineligible as patwaris as they possessed double domicile and applied for one and more Sub-Divisions for recruitment as patwaris. Consequently, the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. Issued order, dated 30-12-2002 cancelling the appointments of five patwaris, out of which two were the appellants. The matter came up before this Tribunal in appeal No,752 of 2003 brought by Abdul Razzaq, appellant and appeal No,882 of 2003 by Israr Ahmad, appellant. Both the appeals were accepted and the penultimate along with the final paragraph of the judgment are reproduced for facility of reference below:-- "The upshot of the discussion is that the appeal is accepted. Order, dated 30-12-2002 by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Lahore Cantt., and 31-3-2003 by Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, are set aside and quashed. Appellant shall be reinstated in service. However, period between removal from service and reinstatement shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
' The department may, if it so desires, proceed against the appellant but strictly in accordance with law as observed in this judgment."
' Appellants were served with the following show-cause notice by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt:-- "Vide his letter No,8435/NTR/DLR, dated 17-12-2002, the Senior Member/Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, was pleased to cancel your appointment and declared you ineligible as Patwari on grounds of possessing double domicile as you applied in more than one sub-division for recruitment as Patwari i,e, in Tehsil Lahore City bearing application No,71 and Tehsil Lahore Cantt. At Serial No,191.
' By this act you rendered yourself liable to disciplinary action under RSO 2000/2001.
' Now therefore you are hereby called upon to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of this communication as to why disciplinary action amounting to termination may not be taken against you."
' The Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. On 1-9-2003, after extending hearing to the appellants removed them from service with immediate effect while acting under section 3 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Appeal of the appellants to the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Lahore, arraigned as Respondent No,3 failed. Both the orders have now been challenged in these appeals.
3. Appellants counsel sent an adjournment slip for having been advised bed rest for three weeks by his doctor due to heart ailment. However, after going through the memorandum of appeal, presented by the appellants the defect in the proceedings pointed out was so inherent, that it was decided in consultation with the District Attorney, that the onus on the query to be made to the Respondents lies heavily on them and only if they can successfully discharge their obligation, counsel for the appellant would be provided an opportunity of hearing.
4. A junior clerk appeared for the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore when the case was called for hearing, although there are standing instructions issued by none else but the Governor of the Punjab that in proceedings before the Punjab Service Tribunal an officer not below the rank of section Officer, conversant with the facts of the case shall appear with the complete record. The junior clerk was asked to send the Deputy Secretary to answer the questions to be asked by the Tribunal. After interval Superintendent put in appearance with the file. Superintendent was asked whether after the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal in the first round of litigation in appeal No,752 of 2003 brought by Abdul Razzaq and 882 of 2003 by Israr Ahmad, the order was clear and unambiguous that the appellants be reinstated in service, period between removal from service and reinstatement had to be treated as leave of the kind due and thereafter if the department so desired could proceed against the appellants strictly in accordance with law, as observed, in the judgment. The Superintendent, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore stated that there are no orders at least in the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore passed by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt., indicating that the judgments of the Tribunal in the previous litigation alluded to in the present judgment, directing the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. To reinstate the appellants, treating their absence as leave of the kind due. Despite service through registered post twice, Deputy District Officer, (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. Or Executive District Officer (Revenue) Lahore failed to put appearance. Only Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore appeared and submitted his comments. On 30-3-3004 when the appeal was admitted to regular hearing, office was directed to issue yet another notice to Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. And Executive District Officer (Revenue) Lahore to put in appearance before the Court for today. Their obduracy continued unabated by their absence today. The categorical statement made by the Superintendent, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore that the appellants were not reinstated and their period of leave as absence was not treated as leave of the kind due, leave no doubt in my mind that the judgment of this Tribunal in appeal No,752 of 2003 by Abdul Razzaq and Appeal No,882 of 2003 by Israr Ahmad, were not complied with. Not only the omission amounts to a gross contumacy on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 &' 3 but launching of the further proceedings are totally without jurisdiction. The basis of proceedings under section 3 of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 is that a person contemplated to be proceeded against should be a person in government or corporation service'. Section 2(d) of the Ordinance defines person in government service to include every person who is a member of civil service of the Province or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province or any employee serving in any Court or tribunal set up or established by the Punjab Government but does not include a Judge of the High Court or any Court subordinate to the High Court. The appellants could only regain the status of a civil servant had the judgment of the Tribunal in the direction been complied with as ordered in para-6 of the judgment. The Respondents particularly the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. Proceeded against the persons who were not civil servants, therefore, no sanctity is clothed to his orders, dated 1-9-2003. The said order along with that of the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Lahore, dated 9-12-2003 and 15-11-2003 respectively are set aside and quashed to be coram non judice.
5. Copy of the judgment shall be sent by the Registrar of this Tribunal to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab to consider launching disciplinary proceedings against Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lahore Cantt. And Executive District Officer (Revenue) Lahore for disobeying the orders of the Tribunal in appeal No,752 of 2003 brought by Abdul Razzaq and appeal No,882 of 2003 brought by Israr Ahmad as also causing loss to the government exchequer as with the passage of time payment of an amount calculated as leave of the kind due is definitely going to augment which shall place a heavier financial burden by making payment to the appellants from the government treasury.