SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).-Mr. Ali Imam, appellant who wets holding a post of Manager Central Army Press, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi in grade-18 was served by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence with Charge Sheet on 5th February, 1975 for inefficiency and corruption. He was required to reply to the Charge-Sheet within 14 days of its service and was also sent on forced leave of 61 days which was subsequently extended twice with the approval of the Minister for Establishment. The charge sheet was also accompanied by the statement of allegations and Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Statistical Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer to whom the reply to the charge-sheet was to reach within the stipulated period.
2. A full-fledged Inquiry was held against the appellant. The Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence of several witnesses and examined the record of the press of which the appellant was the Manager and found him guilty of both the charges. The appellant was also heard in person by the Inquiry Officer. The summary of the finding of the Inquiry Officer is as under :- Charge 1 : Inefficiency: Mr. Ali Imam, Manager, CAP, failed to check the expense vouchers made during the month. He demand/issue vouchers made during the month. He also failed to arrange proper annual stock taking and failed to examine the letter under which 102 paper reels (which were not actually received) were shown to have been received in the CAP at the time he signed and issued the receipt voucher and also signed the ledger. This amounts to gross inefficiency on his part.
Charge 2 : Corruption After scrutiny of the relevant papers/documents and evidence it has been established that 102 paper reels ware not received in the Central Army Press but were fraudulantly shown to have been received with a view to deceiving the Government. It has been established that interpolations were made by the Store Section of CAP under the direction and knowledge of Mr. Ali Imam and the quantity of the paper so achieved was fraudulently disposed of and had been consumed for private jobs and supplied to private Presses, such as Ilmi Press, Lahore. The interpolations in the demand/issue vouchers were also done to cover the short receipt of 104 paper reels. (102 plus 2 written off by DP (Army) and other items of paper. He i's thus guilty of corruption.
Opinion of the Inquiry Officer: "Mr. Ali Imam, Manager, CAP, is found guilty of the Charges."
3. In his notice dated 7th May 1975, the Secretary, Ministry of Defence recommended to the Establishment Secretary that the appellant may be removed from service with immediate effect and sum of Rs. 55,590 for which he defrauded the Government recovered from him. In the said note the Secretary, Ministry of Defence also observed that Mr. Ali Imam (appellant) being an Officer of Grade-18, the Minister for Establishment was the Authority in his case. He solicited the approval of the Minister to the recommendation made by the Inquiry Officer as endorsed by him.
4. It appears that the Minister for Establishment approved the proposal regarding the removal of appellant from service with immediate effect but with regard to recovery of the amount the Ministry of Defence was advised to "find ways and means" to recover the said amount. As a result of this approval of the Minister, the appellant was removed from service under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 vide Notification of 4th June 1975.
5. Mr. Ali Imam requested for the supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer and the copies of the statements of the witnesses as well as the statement made by himself before the Inquiry Officer.
His request was however not acceded to.
6. The appellant appealed against the order of removal from service to the President vide this representation dated 13th June 1975. This appeal which was routed through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence was examined by himself and again forwarded to Minister of State for Establishment with the following concluding observations :- "In view of the position explained, it is evident that Mr. Imam has no case. It is therefore, proposed that the petition may be rejected. The order of removal from service against Mr. Imam was passed by the Minister of State for Establishment on behalf of the Prime Minister under the power delegated to him. The review petition of Mr. Imam is also to be disposed of by him on behalf of Prime Minister. The approval of the Minister of State is therefore solicited to the recommendations made in the preceding paragraph."
7. The proposal of the Secretary of the Ministry of Defence for the rejection of the representation of the appellant was approved by the Minister of State for Establishment on 11th August 1965 and the order of removal of the appellant from service was upheld. However, it appears that the order of rejection of his appeal was not received by the appellant till 13th September 1975 and which date he appealed to this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, 4th June 1975 be set aside.
8. Mr. Imtiaz Mohammad Khan, Advocate for appellant has taken great pains in helping us to go through the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer and pointed out that the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer was based on evidence which was highly unreliable. It may be pointed out that the evidence relied upon by the Inquiry Officer consisted of the statement of those persons who were also involved in the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the appellant and the loss, of Govern--ment money. It is however, not necessary for us to discuss the evidence and other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant because this appeal must succeed on a ground of jurisdiction alone.
9. The appellant is a civilian employed in Defence Services. The Ministry of Defence Notification dated the 30th March, 1974 whereby the President had delegated the powers of Authority and Authorised Officers for the purpose of Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, is as follows :- The President is pleased to decide that the following officers shall be designated as Authority/Authorised Officer under sub-rules (2) & (8) of rule 2 of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, in respect of civilian employees paid from the Defence estimates, who are under the administrative control of the Defence Division.
Authority Authorised Officer Authority Authorised Officer
(1) Civilian employees in grade 17 to 20Prime MinisterSecretary
(2) Civilian employees in grades 16. Secretary Secretary"
10. It is clear from this Notification that although the Secretary, Ministry of Defence rightly exercised the power of the Authorised Officer III the case of the appellant who is an Officer of Grade-18, the order of removal of the appellant from service was passed by the Minister of State for Establishment instead of the Prime Minister who was the Authority for the said purpose. Likewise the appeal in the case of the appellant was preferable to the President himself who was the next higher authority but the appeal was rejected in the appellant's case by the Minister of State for Establishment who succeeded the Establishment Minister. The order of removal from service as the order dismissing the appeal were thus both passed by persons who had no authority under Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 and the Notification of delegation issued thereunder.
11. When the learned counsel for the State was confronted with this position, he pointed out that by Office Memorandum No. 3/20/70-D-III dated 2nd March 1972, the President has delegated his power to the Minister for Establishment and therefore it was necessary for obtaining the order of the Prime Minister or that of the President. Para. 4 of this O.M. Reads as follows :-- "Case relating to appointments, disciplinary matters and those of extension of services of officers above the status of Joint Secretary will be submitted to the President by the Minister for Establishment. All the other cases relating to the officers of posts upto and including that of Joint Secretary and equivalent will be decided by the Minister for Establishment."
12. The learned counsel's contention is that in view of this O.M. All the powers of the President in respect of the Officers of Grade-18 were to be exercised by the Establishment Minister/ Minister of State for Establish--ment, and therefore there is no illegality or want of jurisdiction in the order of removal from service of the appellant or in the order dismissing his appeal addressed to the President. We are afraid there is no substance in this contention. The O.M. Was issued on 2nd March 1972 and at that time neither Civil Servants Act, 1973 had come into force nor Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 which provided for delega--tion of Power of Authority by the President and for the appointment of Authorised Officer were made. The Government, as already observed, itself issued a Notification on 30th March 1972 on the basis of which the powers of Authority in the case of civilian employees in Defence Services in Grade-18 were given to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and power of the Authority was given by the President to the Prime Minister. From the order of the Prime Minister appeal was to be preferred to the President under Civil Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and not to the Establishment Minister.
13. It is settled law that an order passed by an Authority which has18 no jurisdiction to do so has no force of a law and is not an order at all.
The appellant was removed from service by the Establishment Minister who had no authority in the matter at the relevant time. The appeal of the appellant was also rejected by the Minister of State for Establishment without any valid authority. The order of the removal of the appellant from service being without jurisdiction is, therefore, set aside and this appeal is accepted on that ground alone.
14. The appellant shall be deemed to be in service from the date of his removal with all the benefits.
15. File No. 71/DIB/'74 (two folders) produced by the Ministry of Defence for our examination, may be returned to them.
16. Parties to be informed accordingly.