' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- This petition is directed against judgment, dated 18-4-2005 passed by a learned Judge of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby Civil Revision No,1007 of 2004 filed by petitioners was dismissed and the order of reinstatement in service of respondent passed by learned District Judge, Peshawar was maintained.
2. Briefly, stated facts are that on 29-1-1983 respondent Dil Nawaz Khan joined petitioner/University of Peshawar (hereinafter referred "the University") as Technical Assistant (BPS-14). He was transferred and posted as Camp Manager at the campus of the University at Baragali. Later on, he was transferred to academic section of the University. Since there was allegations of disobedience of lawful orders of the competent authority, negligent, in his duties, absence from duty without prior permission and public complaints about his character and moral values, as such Dr. Tariq Bangish Assistant Professor of the History Department was appointed as Inquiry officer to conduct facts finding inquiry. He submitted his report on 16-6-1991 in pursuance of which a show-cause notice was issued by the Registrar of the University to respondent on 9-7-1991 which was replied by respondent on 16-7-1999 but the same was not found satisfactory as such he was removed from service on 3-9-1991. Feeling aggrieved respondent filed department appeal which was rejected aggrieved respondent filed departmental appeal which was rejected by syndicate on 11-12-1991.
The respondent then filed a suit for the grant of declaration, permanent injunction and in the alternate for the recovery of Rs,3,00,000 as damages before Civil Judge, Peshawar which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 4-3-2003. This judgment was assailed before Additional District Judge, Peshawar which was allowed vide judgment, dated 17-5-2004 and respondent was reinstated in service with back-benefits, however, the suit to the extent of damages was dismissed.
This judgment was challenged by petitioners before learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
3. We have heard Mian Saadullah Janduli, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Mr. Abdul Qadar Khattak, learned counsel for the respondent at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
4. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that order of removal from service of respondent was rightly passed by Registrar with the approval of competent authority after holding proper inquiry, as such, order of removal is proper. He stressed that the respondent did not avail proper remedy but agitated his grievance by filing suit for the grant of declaration, permanent injunction and in the alternate for the recovery of Rs,3,00,000 as damages which was not competent as such impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent while controverting the above contentions contended that show-cause notice as well as order of removal from service was passed by Registrar of the University who was not competent to do so as such the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
6. In order to reconstitute and reorganize the University for the purposes of giving it necessary autonomy, raising its standard of teaching and research, and improving its administration an Act was passed on 2nd April, 1974, which was designated as The University of Peshawar Act, 1974 N.- W.F.P. Act No,II of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In pursuance of section 27(1)(k) of the Act, University of Peshawar Employees Efficiency and Discipline Statutes 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Statutes") were prescribed to govern the matter relating to efficiency and discipline of the University of Peshawar Employees. It would be appropriate to refer hereinbelow the words "Authority" and "Authorised Officer" as defined in section 4 of the Statutes for proper adjudication of the matter:--
(a) "Authority" means an officer or authority specified in the Appendix, competent to appoint.
(b) "Authorised Officer" means an officer competent to take disciplinary action.
' Section 5 of the Statutes prescribes the grounds of penalty whereas section 6 mentions the penalties to be imposed upon the employees after completion of disciplinary action by competent authority. According to section 29 of the Statutes Syndicate has been empowered to issue instructions for the maintenance of appropriate standards of efficiency, good conduct, discipline and integrity of the University Employees. For initiating disciplinary action an appendix has been attached at the foot of the Statutes wherein National Pay Scale (N.P.S.) of the employee. Appointing Authority, Authority competent to take disciplinary action and Appellate Authority have been defined. Coming to the case of respondents it is pertinent to note that at the relevant time he was working as Technical Assistant in BPS-14, as such according to appendix his Appointing authority was the Vice-Chancellor whereas authority competent to take disciplinary action was Head of Department and Syndicate was Appellate Authority.
7. Since respondent was working in BPS-14, as such, Head of the Department being the Authorised Officer was competent to appoint Inquiry Officer and to issue show-cause notice and Vice- Chancellor who was competent to pass order for his removal from service. The Registrar of the University was not vested with such power as such being incompetent his entire actions were found without lawful authority. Accordingly, show-cause notice, dated 9-7-1991 and order of removal dated 3-9-1991 issued by him were rightly set aside by the learned District Judge and maintained by learned High Court. From perusal of record it is clear that no regular inquiry was conducted against respondent in the matter. Moreover, learned counsel has failed to refer from the Act or the Statutes that Registrar had any vested authority to issue show-cause notice or order of removal from service. There being concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, as such, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.