M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-----The appellant, Aziz Din, who was a Forest Ranger and retired from service on 1-10-1975, has appealed against the order dated 10-1-1979 made by the Conservator of Forests, Multan (respondent No. 1) ordering the recovery of Rs. 39,864.92 from, the gratuity and pension of the appellant, this being the amount which the appellant allegedly failed to recover from contractor-cum-lessee, Mohammad Nawaz by name, during his service as Forest Ranger.
2. As the facts go, the appellant was Forest Ranger in Khanewal West Range from December 1962 to July 1964 and from March 1965 to March 1966 when a certain area was given out on lease to Mohammad Nawaz. It appears that from the very beginning the lessee was a defaulter in his payments and the Forest authorities concerned had considerable diffi--culty in making him clear his arrears. More than a year after his retire--ment; the appellant was served with a show-cause notice dated 30-7-1977 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Multan, stating that the appellant was guilty of inefficiency and misconduct within the meaning of rule 3 (b) of the E & D Rules, 1575, in that he had failed to recover Rs. 39,864.92 from the said lessee. After his reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant received an order dated 29-3-1978 passed by the D. F. O., Multan, imposing upon him the penalty of recovery of the stated amount. His appeal to the Conservator of Forests, Multan, was accepted vide order dated 13-8-1978. However, on 10-1-1979 the Conservator reviewed his own order and set it aside. In the meantime, Messrs Altaf Hussain Shah, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, and Ataullah, A. C. F. Who were also charged in the same case along with the appellant, were declared to have been not responsible for the recovery of the amount in question.
3. The parties were heard. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that no notice was issued to him before the Conservator made the revised order and that he was thus condemned unheard.
The case of Dr. Abdul Majid v. Secretary Health, decided on 28-6-1979 by this Tribunal was also cited as a precedence; in that case the order of recovery of an amount from the appellant was set aside by us on the ground that under the Pension Rules no such recovery could be made if the proceedings on that behalf were started more than one year after the retirement of appellant. In the present case, however, we find that precedence is irrelevant because the proceedings for recovery were commenced before the period of one year was out.
4. The impugned order must be struck down on other grounds. In his order dated 10-1-1979 the Conservator admits that the Chief Conser--vator of Forests had advised him in writing that he "should not have decided this case without finding out the fate of cases of the above-named officers" these Officers being Messrs Altaf Hussain Shah and Ataullah. According to PLD 1972 Lah.
316 relevant at page 334: "When a statute confers a certain duty on an officer it is that officer who has to make up his mind and pass the order in accordance with law and exercise his discretion uninfluenced by any opinion of his superior Officer". When once the Conservator had passed his order of 13-8-1978 after due consideration he could not revise it on the advice of anyone else, albeit his superior. PLD 1973 Lah. 221 further strengthens this proposition by stating, in respect of the exercise of authority, that "No other officer howsoever high in status he might be, could assume power of interference with the order made by the competent authority unless he is clothed with such an authority by law". Moreover the respondent No. 1 after having once decided the matter was incompetent to reopen the same and that to without hearing the appellant and only the revising authority had the power to reopen the case who also could do so after hearing the appellant.
In view of the above, the conclusion is inescapable that the Conservator was not competent to review his own order, and that too at the instance of a higher officer and without exercising his own mind and discretion. His order dated 10-1-1979 is, therefore, invalid and cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside.