' JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant who was serving as Foodgrains Inspector, Rahim Yar Khan when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 along with two other officers. The allegations levelled against him, as per the charge framed against him, were the following:- "(i) During the scheme years 1997-98 and 1998-99, he, in connivance with the other staff, misappropriated a quantity of 133.0 M. Tons and 2459.8 M. Tons of wheat respectively valuing Rs,2,38,63,301.5.
(ii) Also misappropriated 21,754 M. Tons of wheat valuing Rs,2,00,216.85 relating to the scheme year 1997-98 which was detected during the dispatches of wheat to Islamabad.
(iii) Adjusted 1367 M. Tons of wheat against release of wheat stocks to Four Mills to cover the shortage and to avoid deposit of loss on recoverable rates resulting in loss to Government under the head of subsidy amounting to Rs,50,62,930,56."
2. The appellant denied the charges. The inquiry was conducted by the Addl. Secretary (Agriculture), Government of the Punjab and the I inquiry report was submitted by him on 22-3- 2003. The competent authority issued show-cause notice dated 2-4-2003 in terms of Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and the appellant filed reply thereto.
Rai Ijaz Ali Zaigham, Secretary Ombudsman, Punjab provided the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant as Hearing Officer. Subsequently the authority imposed on him penalty of dismissal from service and also recovery of Rs,1,20,31,759.17 vide its order dated 7-5-2005. Criminal cases were also got registered against the appellant vide F.I.R. No,15/99 and 28/99 in Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan Region, Multan on 1-3-1999 and 17-3-1999 respectively. The appellant filed a review petition against the order dated 7-5-2005 passed by the Chief Secretary/competent Authority. However, as the same was not decided, he has filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal.
3. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides.
4. Admittedly the proceedings against the appellant were initiated under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, probably the competent authority did not consider that the E&D Rules, 1975 had been repealed by E&D Rules, 1999 and subsequently Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 was enforced and under section 11 of the said Ordinance, the provisions of the Ordinance were to take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the rules made there-under and any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 of the Ordinance, ibid, provided that all proceedings initiated on the commencement of the Ordinance in respect of matters and persons in service, provided for in the said Ordinance, shall be governed by the provisions of the said Ordinance and the rules made thereunder. In view of sections 11 and 12 of the said Ordinance, the disciplinary proceedings could not be conducted against the appellant under the E&D Rules, 1975. In this case the statement of allegations was signed on 1-1-2001 and obviously the charge-sheet shall be presumed to have been signed/issued on the same date on which the statement of allegations had been signed. As mentioned above in view of the enactment of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000, the proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 could not be initiated against the appellant as the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had overriding effect. Hence the appellant should have been proceeded against under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and not under the aforesaid E&D Rules, 1975. In Service Appeal No,2939/2003 titled Dr. Qamar Sarwar Rana v. Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and another which was decided on 18- 3-2004, this Tribunal had expressed the same view and there does not appear to be any justification for departure from the said decision.
5. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is accepted. The impugned order dated 7-5- 2005 is set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No,2 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, instead of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Under the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.