M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).------In this appeal the appellant joined as Forester on 22-4- 1963, under the Government of West Pakistan in the Forest Department. On 6-11-1966, he was sent on deputation to the Soil Conservation Department. He was suspended from service on 26-7-1968 by the Project Director, Soil Conservation Rawalpindi, on the charges of disobe--dience of orders, wilful absence from duty and cheating the Government by sub--mitting a false Medical Certificate.
On 5-12-1968, he was served with a formal charge-sheet to which the appellant submitted his reply dated 23-12-1968 in which he denied the charges. He was also served with a show-cause notice dated 6-2-1969 by the same authority. The appellant, however on 10-2-1969, pointed out that he being the employee of the Forest Department, his case may be forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, North Forest Division, Rawalpindi, for proper action. His request was acceded to and it appears from Annexure `E' that on 7-9-1973 his case was referred to the Forest Department. The D.
F. O., Rawalpindi North Forest Division, on 19-3-1975, appointed Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan Saddozai, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Rawalpindi as Inquiry Officer, who held the appellant guilty of wilful absence and he recommended major punishment against the appellant. He was served with a show--cause notice dated 15-9-1975 by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Forest Division, Rawalpindi, and on 17-12-1975 the appellant was dismissed from service. The period from 26-7-1968 to the date of dismissal was treated as `unauthorised absence'. The appeal before the Conservator of Forest was filed on 26-11-1975. The appeal appears to have been rejected by the Corservator of Forest on 17-12-1976. The present appeal was filed earlier before this Tribunal on 3-3-1976.
2. The Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection that the appeal as filed on 3-3-1976 against the order of D. F. O. Dated 17-11-1975, was barred by time. The appellant, however, placed on record the final order passed on 17-12-1976 by the Conservator of Forest (Departmental Appellate Authority) and claims that he was entitled to file the appeal within one month of the final order i.e. Somewhere in January, 1977 and thus the appeal filed on 3-3-1976, was in time.
3. In view of the above, we are of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the Government Pleader has no force and is accordingly repelled. On merits, the contention of the appellant was that the disciplinary proceedings against him were taken by the Department under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rule, 1960, which till 24-2-1969 did not contain any provision authorising the borrowing Authority to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the deputationist. Rule 13-A was inserted in the Rules for the first time on 24-2-1969 to empower the Borrowing Authority in this regard. Thus all the proceedings taken by the Borrowing Authority, i.e. The Project Director, Conservation Department, were wholly without jurisdiction. In the above context, it was argued that it was necessary for the department to issue a fresh charge- sheet to the appellant which admittedly was never served upon him and thus all the proceedings taken up by the Forest Department against the appellant were a nullity and as such the impugned orders passed by the D. F. O. North Forest Division, Rawalpindi and also by the Conservator of Forest on 17-12-1976, were illegal and without jurisdiction. Even on merits, the appellant submitted that the department has failed to take into consideration the explanation of the appellant according to which he was not at fault. He thus pressed for the acceptance of this appeal.
4. The Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that the appellant was fully apprised of the charges against him and thus he had suffered no material prejudice whatsoever. In this behalf, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal reported' as In re : Muhammad Akbar v. Punjab Government (1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 58), in which this Tribunal observed that the purpose of charge- sheet is to put the official at notice as to the charge which. He was to meet in the proceedings to follow. He further submitted that A the view expressed by this Tribunal was based upon the decision o the Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed in PLD 1977 SC 182. Thus the mere preparation and service of the charge-sheet by the Project Director, Conservation Department, did not effect in substance, the merits of the case. The right of the appellant to have reasonable opportunity to defend himself could not be said to have been denied to him. He also submitted that the fault of the appellant had been adequately established in the departmental proceedings inasmuch as the appellant had been submitting applications for leave all through the Medical Superintendent concerned declared him fit and he failed to join the duty. Thus on merits the appellant had no case.
5. After hearing both the parties, we find that the objection of the appellant as to the service of the charge-sheet by the Project Director, Soil Conservation Department, instead of Forest Department, was devoid of any substance. We reaffirm our view expressed in the case relied upon by the Government Pleader. The appellant has shown nothing to merit any departure form our previous view. No prejudice was shown to have been caused to the appellant in this regard. Even on merits, the appellant hrs failed to make out any case. We, therefore, do not find this case fit for interference. However, with regard to the grievance of the appellant for the non-payment of the Subsistence Allowance from the date of suspension to the date of dismissal, we find that on 15-1- 1969 the Project Director, Soil Conservation Department, Rawalpindi, had himself ordered that he (the appellant) will get 1/3rd pay during the suspension period. We accordingly direct that if the same had not been paid to the appellant, he will be entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance at the rate and for the period specified above.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the observations above.