' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- While working as Registrar, Government College of Technology, Raiwind Road, Lahore, the respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on the allegations of financial irregularities and vide order, dated 6-7-2000, the Regional Director, (the Authorized Officer) imposed penalty of the stoppage of four increments w,e,f, 1-12-1999 without "accumulative effect" also debarring him from further involvement in any financial matter. However, the Secretary, Government of Punjab in the Industries and Mineral Development Department, vide order, dated 30-8-2000, directed a de novo inquiry which was held. The Inquiry Officer found the three charges as proved on the basis of which, the Secretary Industries, vide order, dated 30-10-2001 directed removal of the respondent from service. He unsuccessfully sought review of the order, dated 30-10-2001 and then approached the learned Punjab Service Tribunal in an appeal which was allowed vide judgment dated 1-4-2003 primarily on the ground that the "Authority" could not review the order of the "Authorized Officer" under rule 2(1)(c) under which the Secretary, Industries had directed a de novo inquiry. The Government of the Punjab and another seek leave to appeal against the said judgment of the Tribunal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that rule 2(1)(c) was only misquoted since the Secretary to Government of Punjab acting as Government of the Punjab could under rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, direct a de novo inquiry and pass an appropriate order as appellate authority.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The impugned order is based on the assumption as if such an order could be passed under rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. It will be appropriate to reproduce rule 18 aforesaid for facility of reference:-- "(1) The Government may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any authority for purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, penalty on order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such authority.
(2) On examining any record under this rule, the Government may direct the authority to make further inquiry into the charge of which the accused has been acquitted and discharged, and may in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on an appellate authority: ' Provided that any order under this rule made prejudicial to the accused shall not be passed unless he has been given an opportunity to show case against the proposed action: ' Provided further that an order imposing punishment shall not be revised suo motu or otherwise after the lapse of a period of three months from the date of its communication to the accused if no appeal is preferred.
(3) No proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the accused who has a right of appeal under these rules and has not brought the appeal."
4. The repository of power to review the proceedings, inter alia of an "Authorized Officer" is the Government of Punjab. There is a clear line of demarcation between the "Government" and the "Authority", within the contemplation of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. These rules have been framed under section 15 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the "Government" as defined therein is the "Government of Punjab", "Authority" has been defined by rule 2(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as "the Government or an officer or authority designated to exercise the powers of the authority under these ' rules". The "Government" has also been defined in the Rules of Business framed under Article 139 of the Constitution and it means the "Government of the Punjab". The business of the Government of the Punjab is carried on in accordance with the aforesaid rules. According to rule 4, each department of the Provincial Government shall consist of a Minister, a Secretary and such other officers as the Government may nominate. Duties and functions of the Secretary have been given in rule 9, while allocation of business has been specified in Schedule II which has the backing of rule 3 according to which, service matters except those entrusted to the Services and General Administration Department are inter alia, allocated to the Industries Department. Therefore, the Secretary could competently pass an order on behalf of the Government of Punjab subject to compliance of the relevant provisions of law including the Punjab Government Rules of Business. We have tried to ascertain whether the impugned order directing de novo inquiry was passed by the Secretary as an "Authority" or as Government of Punjab. We can only answer this question by the documents placed before us. The first to be referred to is the order directing de novo inquiry which specifically, recites that the said order was passed as "Authority" and the order imposing penalty was also passed as "Authority" as borne out by the last two recitals of the order, dated 30-10-2001, which are reproduced herein.
"AND WHEREAS I, the Authority in this case, am of the considered opinion that the extremely culpable conduct on the part of the accused civil servant warrants severe punitive action against him.
' NOW THEREFORE, I, in my capacity of Authority in the case, hereby impose the major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect upon the accused Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, former Budget and Accounts Officer, Regional Directorate of Technical Education, Lahore, now posted as Registrar, Government College of Technology, Raiwind Road, Lahore." (underline by us to supply emphasis).
4. On the basis of these orders it is not possible for us to say that the Secretary Industries, while directing de novo inquiry and imposing penalty on the respondent, acted as Government of Punjab. Even if there could be any doubt we are inclined to extend its benefit to the respondent civil servant rather than to the public functionary.
5. The matter, however, does not end here. The "Authorized Officer" had imposed the penalty vide his order, dated 6-7-2000. Perusal of the order, dated 30-8-2000 shows that this order was not even set aside. We could not reconcile with the situation that in the presence of the penalty order, dated 6-7-2000 another de novo proceedings could be taken against the respondent and another harsher penalty could be imposed.
6. For what has been stated above, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal although our reasons for the same are different. This petition is accordingly dismissed and leave is refused.